Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Nulandgate bulletin, 2015

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Dec 24, 2015] Obama s foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
The Washington Post

Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.

After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted next year.

At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.

"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm. "It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."

... ... ...

In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.

The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of 2016.

But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned from constrained oil exports a year ago.

Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were broadened in 2012.

"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."

Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output, its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's Urals oil, McNally said.

Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China, foreign policy and energy.

[Dec 23, 2015] The antipathy the Russian kreakly bear toward Matthew Lee

Notable quotes:
"... the antipathy the Russian kreakly ..."
"... the Russian intelligentsia ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile, December 20, 2015 at 3:09 am
Russian "oppositionist" tweets – don't you just love 'em?

Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors

No doubt the person who posted the above tweet thinks Psaki, Harf, Trudeau, Rear-Admiral Kirby et al. have all been unfairly tested by this Russian FSB colonel Matt Lee and he should not have been allowed to take part in the Dept. of State press briefings because he is an agent of the Dark Lord, whilst the above mentioned Dept. of State spokespersons are all on the side of righteousness.

marknesop , December 20, 2015 at 11:38 am
I do love them, actually. For anyone who is not stupid, the antipathy the Russian kreakly bear toward Matthew Lee and anyone like him who questions the pat and Manichean State Department narrative bespeaks an admiration for the way the United States government operates. Quite apart for an unhealthy devotion to 'Murkan nationalism and a clear belief that when America seizes something, it should be grateful because it is a compliment if America wants it, it is a preview of how they would govern if they had power. Russia's 'intellectuals' are great admirers of the disinformation and manipulation of the public consciousness with which the State Department gets about its daily work.

It is noteworthy that Matt Lee has never at any time expressed any gratuitous admiration for Russia or Putin or the way Russia conducts global affairs. He merely questions the State Department when its lies get too big or when it purports something as incontestable fact which it has gleaned from social media and Syrian activists. But the Russian intelligentsia view him as an impediment to a unipolar world ruled by America The Great And Good.

[Dec 23, 2015] The Neocons - Masters of Chaos

Notable quotes:
"... It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the only effective fighters against Assad. ..."
"... By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit. ..."
"... But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words, the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Neocons' Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit. "] ..."
"... Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead. ..."
"... As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife" a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square. ..."
"... When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization of Yanukovych and Putin. ..."
"... Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression," touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe. ..."
"... While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs. ..."
Oct 17, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

If you're nervously watching the stock market gyrations and worrying about your declining portfolio or pension fund, part of the blame should go to America's neocons who continue to be masters of chaos, endangering the world's economy by instigating geopolitical confrontations in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

Of course, there are other factors pushing Europe's economy to the brink of a triple-dip recession and threatening to stop America's fragile recovery, too. But the neocons' "regime change" strategies, which have unleashed violence and confrontations across Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and most recently Ukraine, have added to the economic uncertainty.

This neocon destabilization of the world economy began with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush who squandered some $1 trillion on the bloody folly. But the neocons' strategies have continued through their still-pervasive influence in Official Washington during President Barack Obama's administration.

The neocons and their "liberal interventionist" junior partners have kept the "regime change" pot boiling with the Western-orchestrated overthrow and killing of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the proxy civil war in Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad, the costly economic embargoes against Iran, and the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.

All these targeted governments were first ostracized by the neocons and the major U.S. news organizations, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, which have become what amounts to neocon mouthpieces. Whenever the neocons decide that it's time for another "regime change," the mainstream U.S. media enlists in the propaganda wars.

The consequence of this cascading disorder has been damaging and cumulative. The costs of the Iraq War strapped the U.S. Treasury and left less government maneuvering room when Wall Street crashed in 2008. If Bush still had the surplus that he inherited from President Bill Clinton – rather than a yawning deficit – there might have been enough public money to stimulate a much-faster recovery.

President Obama also wouldn't have been left to cope with the living hell that the U.S. occupation brought to the people of Iraq, violent chaos that gave birth to what was then called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and has since rebranded itself "the Islamic State."

But Obama didn't do himself (or the world) any favors when he put much of his foreign policy in the hands of Democratic neocon-lites, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Bush holdovers, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus. At State, Clinton promoted the likes of neocon Victoria Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, and Obama brought in "liberal interventionists" like Samantha Power, now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

In recent years, the neocons and "liberal interventionists" have become almost indistinguishable, so much so that Robert Kagan has opted to discard the discredited neocon label and call himself a "liberal interventionist." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's True Foreign Policy 'Weakness.'"]

Manipulating Obama

Obama, in his nearly six years as president, also has shied away from imposing his more "realistic" views about world affairs on the neocon/liberal-interventionist ideologues inside the U.S. pundit class and his own administration. He has been outmaneuvered by clever insiders (as happened in 2009 on the Afghan "surge") or overwhelmed by some Official Washington "group think" (as was the case in Libya, Syria, Iran and Ukraine).

Once all the "smart people" reach some collective decision that a foreign leader "must go," Obama usually joins the chorus and has shown only rare moments of toughness in standing up to misguided conventional wisdoms.

The one notable case was his decision in summer 2013 to resist pressure to destroy Syria's military after a Sarin gas attack outside Damascus sparked a dubious rush to judgment blaming Assad's regime. Since then, more evidence has pointed to a provocation by anti-Assad extremists who may have thought that the incident would draw in the U.S. military on their side. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Was Turkey Behind Syrian Sarin Attack?"]

It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the only effective fighters against Assad.

But the neocons and the "liberal interventionists" seemed oblivious to that danger. They had their hearts set on Syrian "regime change," so were furious when their dreams were dashed by Obama's supposed "weakness," i.e. his failure to do what they wanted. They also blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin who brokered a compromise with Assad in which he agreed to surrender all of Syria's chemical weapons while still denying a role in the Sarin attack.

By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit.

So, Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to sound the trumpet about Ukraine, which he called "the biggest prize."

But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words, the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons' Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit."]

Destabilizing the World

Beyond the recklessness of plotting to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia, the neocon strategy threatened to shake Europe's fragile economic recovery from a painful recession, six years of jobless stress that had strained the cohesion of the European Union and the euro zone.

Across the Continent, populist parties from the Right and Left have been challenging establishment politicians over their inability to reverse the widespread unemployment and the growing poverty. Important to Europe's economy was its relationship with Russia, a major market for agriculture and manufactured goods and a key source of natural gas to keep Europe's industries humming and its houses warm.

The last thing Europe needed was more chaos, but that's what the neocons do best and they were determined to punish Putin for disrupting their plans for Syrian "regime change," an item long near the top of their agenda along with their desire to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," which Israel has cited as an "existential threat."

Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead.

To get at Putin, however, the first step was Ukraine where Gershman's NED was funding scores of programs for political activists and media operatives. These efforts fed into mass protests against Ukrainian President Yanukovych for balking at an EU association agreement that included a harsh austerity plan designed by the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych opted instead for a more generous $15 billion loan deal from Putin.

As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife" a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square.

According to an intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland didn't think EU officials were being aggressive enough. "Fuck the EU," she said as she brainstormed how "to help glue this thing." She literally handpicked who should be in the post-coup government – "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who would indeed become prime minister.

When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization of Yanukovych and Putin.

Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to rejoin Russia.

Starting a Trade War

Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression," touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe.

While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs.

The dominoes soon toppled across the Atlantic as major U.S. stock indices dropped, creating anguish among many Americans just when it seemed the hangover from Bush's 2008 market crash was finally wearing off.

Obviously, there are other reasons for the recent stock market declines, including fears about the Islamic State's victories in Syria and Iraq, continued chaos in Libya, and exclusion of Iran from the global economic system – all partly the result of neocon ideology. There have been unrelated troubles, too, such as the Ebola epidemic in western Africa and various weather disasters.

But the world's economy usually can withstand some natural and manmade challenges. The real problem comes when a combination of catastrophes pushes the international financial system to a tipping point. Then, even a single event can dump the world into economic chaos, like what happened when Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008.

It's not clear whether the world is at such a tipping point today, but the stock market volatility suggests that we may be on the verge of another worldwide recession. Meanwhile, the neocon masters of chaos seem determined to keep putting their ideological obsessions ahead of the risks to Americans and people everywhere.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

[Dec 21, 2015] Ignorance is Strength

Notable quotes:
"... " it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries" ..."
"... It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al, December 19, 2015 at 11:02 am
Butnits Insider: Donald Trump left Joe Scarborough stunned after being asked about Vladimir Putin killing journalists
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-praises-vladimir-putin-125622048.html

…Scarborough pointed to Putin's status as a notorious strongman.

"Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked.

"He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have in this country."

"But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said.

The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.

"I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that's fine."

Scarborough was left visibly stunned.

"I'm confused," the MSNBC host said. "So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?"

"Oh sure, absolutely," Trump said…

…But Friday during his "Morning Joe" interview, Trump said he always "felt fine" about Putin and touted the Russian president's poll numbers. Putin's position in his country is bolstered by the Russian government's control over much of the Russian news media.

"I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader … He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."

Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Obama's.

"I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low 40s. And he's up in the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think they're done by American companies, actually."
####

When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad the US is so far away. Damn modern technology.

Lyttenburgh, December 19, 2015 at 11:50 am
" it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries"

It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™.

P.S. "Ignorance is Strength"

[Dec 21, 2015] Journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within their own government power structure but the best journalists choose faction that actually embraces reality

"... Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. ..."
"... Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom index"? Samizdat here we come! ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 1:53 pm

Sy Hersh's latest via M of A:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Washington does not care who assumes power in Syria – whether it be feuding warlords or an Islamic mullah or Assad's cat. Washington knows that Islamic State needs money to survive and keep power, as does any individual or group who will rule, and that to remain in power, it will sell oil. Good enough, as far as Washington is concerned. If the place remains a seething cauldron of destabilizing hatreds, so much the better.
Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 8:50 pm
I read this carefully earlier today and wish I had made some notes.

It's an interesting article just in what it says about the politics of American journalism at this point in time almost regardless of the subject matter in a kind of Kremlinology vein. It almost reads like a ransom note. My impression is that Hersh is pulling punches at some key points in order not to overplay his hand.

My suggestion: don't get bogged down in the details. From my recollection of the piece from earlier today Hersh is basically championing a few figures and – most importantly – their perspectives here:

It's worth remembering that Hersh's articles on the Ghoutta attack immediately predated the great stand-down by Obama from all out air-war to destroy Syria.

Given that it's axiomatic that journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within their own government power structure and that the BEST journalists – like Hersh – actually embrace this reality, what does the appearance of this article augur?

I especially like the sign off:

"The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington's leadership of the jihadist threat in Syria, and of Turkey's support for it. The message was never listened to. Why not?"

That sounds kind of threatening. In a good way.

* Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In other words: we, the west, have basically made no progress fighting for reform of our leadership and political structures. Meanwhile the Russians seem to have gone "right round the horn" – as the dinosaur in Toy Story might put it.

Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 9:08 pm
Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom index"? Samizdat here we come!

[Dec 11, 2015] Caught On Tape Ukraine Premier Assaulted In Parliament

Notable quotes:
"... lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and dragging him from the rostrum. ..."
"... As The FT reports, ..."
Zero Hedge
& Fighting broke out in parliament among members of Ukraine's ruling coalition on Friday after a member of President Petro Poroshenko's bloc physically picked up Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk and pulled him from the podium.

Yatseniuk was defending his embattled government's record when lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and dragging him from the rostrum.

Members of Yatseniuk's People Front party waded in, pushing Barna and throwing punches, sparking a brawl in the assembly.

You just can't make this up...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2zgTl6-KWqg

The PM later said there were "a lot of morons," so he would not comment on the incident.

* * *

As The FT reports,

Ukraine's parliament has indefinitely postponed a vote of no-confidence in the government of Arseniy Yatseniuk, but not without highlighting the fragility of the country's pro-western coalition.

Citing a flurry of corruption scandals and the lacklustre pace of reforms, an increasing number of MPs - even within the ruling majority - have in recent weeks called for the ousting of Mr Yatseniuk via a no-confidence vote on Friday.

Ukraine's western backers, namely the US and EU, feared such a move could plunge the war-torn and recession-ravaged country into a deep political crisis as it continues to battle Russian-backed separatists in eastern regions - and jeopardise a $40bn international bailout led by the International Monetary Fund.

Such concerns are believed to have been expressed by US vice president Joe Biden in closed door discussions during a visit to Kiev early this week in which he publicly called for political unity, swifter reforms and deeper anti-corruption efforts.

And this is the nation's government who US-taxpayer-backed IMF just forgave their debt, implicitly backing them, and entering The Cold War...

Instead, the IMF is backing Ukrainian policy, its kleptocracy and its Right Sector leading the attacks that recently cut off Crimea's electricity. The only condition on which the IMF insists is continued austerity. Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia, has fallen by a third this years, pensions have been slashed (largely as a result of being inflated away), while corruption continues unabated.

Despite this the IMF announced its intention to extend new loans to finance Ukraine's dependency and payoffs to the oligarchs who are in control of its parliament and justice departments to block any real cleanup of corruption.

For over half a year there was a semi-public discussion with U.S. Treasury advisors and Cold Warriors about how to stiff Russia on the $3 billion owed by Ukraine to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund. There was some talk of declaring this an "odious debt," but it was decided that this ploy might backfire against U.S. supported dictatorships.

In the end, the IMF simply lent Ukraine the money.

By doing so, it announced its new policy: "We only enforce debts owed in US dollars to US allies." This means that what was simmering as a Cold War against Russia has now turned into a full-blown division of the world into the Dollar Bloc (with its satellite Euro and other pro-U.S. currencies) and the BRICS or other countries not in the U.S. financial and military orbit.

[Dec 09, 2015] Declassified CIA Manual Shows How US Uses Bureaucracy to Destabilize Governments

www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

When most people think of CIA sabotage, they think of coups, assassinations, proxy wars, armed rebel groups, and even false flags - not strategic stupidity and purposeful bureaucratic ineptitude. However, according to a declassified document from 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which later became the CIA, used and trained a curious breed of "citizen-saboteurs" in occupied nations like Norway and France.

The World War II-era document, called Simple Sabotage Field Manual, outlines ways in which operatives can disrupt and demoralize enemy administrators and police forces. The first section of the document, which can be read in its entirety here, addresses "Organizations and Conferences" - and how to turn them into a "dysfunctional mess":

On its official webpage, the CIA boasts about finding innovative ways to bring about sabotage, calling their tactics for destabilization "surprisingly relevant." While they admit that some of the ideas may seem a bit outdated, they claim that "Together they are a reminder of how easily productivity and order can be undermined."

In a second section targeted at manager-saboteurs, the guide lists the following tactical moves:

Finally, the guide presents protocol for how saboteur-employees can disrupt enemy operations, too:

The CIA is proud of its Kafkaesque field manual and evidently still views it as an unorthodox but effective form of destabilizing enemy operations around the world. Of course, so too might an anarchist or revolutionary look at such tactics and view them in the context of disrupting certain domestic power structures, many of which are already built like a bureaucratic house of cards.

It seems if any country should refrain from showcasing how easy it is to disrupt inefficient federal agencies, however, it would be the United States.

[Dec 07, 2015] If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed

ourfiniteworld.com
Fast Eddy, December 6, 2015 at 1:11 am
"If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed." – Mark Twain

We all like to know what's happening in the world, and for good reason… understanding our surroundings is essential to survival. We instinctively seek information… we need information. There is, however, a problem that we face:

No matter how much "news" you consume, you won't really know what's going on in the world.

We can't know, because 'the news' is half illusion, provided by government-dependent corporations that are paid to keep you watching and to keep you joined to the status quo.

Granted, they are quite good at providing pictures from disaster areas, but when it comes to explaining why the disaster happened, they mislead almost every time. Yes, some truth makes its way through the news machine, but most of it is wrapped in layers of manipulation. If, for example, you watch the news feeds all day, you'll find a good deal of truth, but you'll find it amongst a pile of half-truths. Do you really have enough time to analyze them all?

[Dec 04, 2015] The Neoconservative Movement is Trotskyism

"... Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy. ..."
"... Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that "Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back. ..."
"... These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement. ..."
"... As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world. ..."
"... In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had. ..."
"... For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. ..."
"... Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel. ..."
January 22, 2013 | Veterans Today

Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy.

We have to keep in mind that America and much of the Western world were scared to death of Bolshevism and Trotskyism in the 1920s and early 30s because of its subversive activity.

Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that "Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back.

These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement.

... ... ...

As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are largely extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as the Bradley Foundation were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.

Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish groups such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organization which has been known to have "co-opted" several "non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq."

Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the CATO Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas "have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour," which is another way of saying that this revolutionary movement is not what the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United States would serve the American people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign entities.

As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.

Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that the Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle East. For that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.

In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had.

... ... ...

Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.

The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel's espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most political pundits value mammon over truth.

For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them.

In the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel is a major country that pops up quite often. This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents and U.S. officials for years.

One former U.S. intelligence official declared, "There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States.

They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons… aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable."

[Nov 23, 2015] Christmas festivities a charade with world at war

news.yahoo.com

http://news.yahoo.com/christmas-festivities-charade-world-war-pope-183159295.html

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". ...

[Oct 28, 2015] IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

Notable quotes:
"... 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." ..."
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

"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."

[Oct 22, 2015] The Vineyard of the Saker Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

Notable quotes:
"... Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies. ..."
"... International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white. ..."
"... In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case. ..."
"... The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance. ..."
"... They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. ..."
"... As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries. ..."
"... What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain. ..."
"... Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower. ..."
"... Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries. ..."
"... Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries. ..."
"... Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system. ..."
"... Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. ..."
"... Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify. ..."
vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

... ... ...

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

Colleagues, friends,

I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?

What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

[Oct 22, 2015] Russians are concerned with the possibility of organizing Maidan in their country by Western intelligence and internal neoliberal fifth column

Looks like color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington) protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this Shaun Walker
Notable quotes:
"... The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine promoting the right kind of democracy to the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of Fuck the EU Nuland. ..."
"... As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no? ..."
"... Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesnt mean they are wrong. ..."
"... International Observer: The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs ..."
"... This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distortions of what is happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our free west have set up in the attempt to organize yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...thats too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy. ..."
"... The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY). ..."
"... Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. ..."
"... a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people. ..."
"... I will generalize here - if by those you mean the West you are mistaken. The vast majority of its populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy, frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous. ..."
"... If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country ..."
"... if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesnt work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMDs well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons. ..."
"... Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and I dont like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. ..."
"... Also, I doubt youve visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. Its as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually. ..."
"... Werent the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian. ..."
"... In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but its hardly democracy. ..."
"... Also the election of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraines own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable fact which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue. ..."
"... Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45. ..."
"... A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev. Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well. Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe. ..."
"... A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup detat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections. ..."
"... Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder whats going to happen in the coming weeks. ..."
"... And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGOs and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine ..."
"... What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get? ..."
"... Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? ..."
"... Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority ..."
"... "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom." ..."
"... After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being: am also wary of vISISantism. ..."
"... As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland:, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasnt peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa. ..."
"... Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place. ..."
"... This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir peoples opinion in the former Soviet republics. ..."
"... There were students from Lviv who were given college credit for being at Maidan. ..."
"... There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead. ..."
"... Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on democratization programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent? ..."
"... All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine. We shouldnt get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU. ..."
"... Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you ..."
"... How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kievs government troops and Nazi battalions?? ..."
"... pro-democracy protesters? like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK? They are right ..."
January 15, 2015 | The Guardian

Patriotic group formed to defend Russia against pro-democracy protesters by Shaun Walker

The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan,: Thursday it would fight any attempts to bring Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych.

"All street movements and color revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first", Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.

"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

jgbg -> RunLukeRun, 16 Jan 2015 06:36

BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate slaughter and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job

I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:

Nazis on the march in Kiev this month

Would you like to claim that the Azov and Aidar battalions aren't a bunch of Nazis?

Here's a Guardian article about Azov.

The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.

As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no?

TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21

Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself informed.

jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19

You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.

The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e. someone acceptable to the US government at the helm. Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first spend the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.

jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12

What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my country.

I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in turn, funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime minister who was brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).

The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual accounts.

Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong.

Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09

He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable 20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated. The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found this timely. But we cannot blame on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny himself. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based society.

They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg to abroad for scripts. The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure he lost any groups with many Russians.

Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50

I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full of aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists. There is a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.

Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41

This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK was told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator:C is out of their reach. But guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.

Asimpleguest -> romans

International Observer: ''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''

PeraIlic

"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," Nkolai Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.

Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself briefly. An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov:

Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.

Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily. If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining NATO?

That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that America is a friend.

imperfetto

This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distortions of what is happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to organize yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.

The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY).

The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism, scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the 'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs, allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)

But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.

Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:

a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.

VladimirM

"The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia,":e Surgeon, whose real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.

Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as "beast" but what he:s closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.

Kondratiev

There is at least anecdotal evidence that Maiden protestors were paid - see: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-and-eu-are-paying-ukrainian-rioters-and-protesters/5369316 .

Bosula

These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer that will get you up to speed....

The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs

Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht

Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his secret police chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic time trying to stir Russophobia.

seventh

Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to defend it.

Robert Sandlin -> seventh

Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to strike Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in Russia.

Bulagen

I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the wording that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans (Russians).

jezzam -> Bulagen

All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely because they would threaten his power.

sashasmirnoff -> jezzam

The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?

I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy, frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.

The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things) the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.

I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc. All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.

One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That would totally ruin the World Order.

Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan

Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?

Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin

Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have the corner on black shirts!

WardwarkOwner

Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?

Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner

I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran, Norway, Qatar, etc.

So what exactly is your point?

Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob

Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be blind . in Mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .

PullingTheStrings

If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country

if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons.

Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings

For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire comment is an act of deflection.

The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb Moscow apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.

Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any protests with violent vISISante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.

Bob Vavich -> Jackblob

Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India.

I can also tell you that when I drove through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".

Jackblob -> Bob Vavich

I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".

Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.

Hamdog

Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.

We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.

In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.

E1ouise -> Hamdog

Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliament* after he fled to Russia. Why don't you know this yet?

secondiceberg -> E1ouise

Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him out" the next day.

Bosula -> secondiceberg

Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the Rada with weapons while the vote taken.

Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.

Sourcrowd

The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.

Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd

I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.

Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45.

I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking about.

Bosula -> Sourcrowd

Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?

Bosula

A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.

Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.

Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe.

TuleCarbonari -> Bosula

A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.

Flinryan

Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

MarcelFromage -> Flinryan

I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the rest of the international community.

secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage

And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine. Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.

Velska

CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.

To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.

Bosula -> Velska

You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.

secondiceberg -> Velska

What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?

What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim any legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the U.S.

Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.

cichonio

"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first,"

That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been seen yet.

Also,

"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"

I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.

Bosula -> cichonio

Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing its own people, but this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type environment.

Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals. Utterly bizarre.

secondiceberg -> cichonio

So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.

Bob Vavich -> cichonio

Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely, the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged. What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe. Probably not.

SHappens

"Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready,":lia Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.

This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.

They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.

"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

ploughmanlunch

After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being: am also wary of vISISantism.

FlangeTube

"Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.

Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but I would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a say too.

As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland:, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa.

Sergei Konyushenko

Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?

FallenKezef

It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.

Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened to a pro-Russian government it's ok.

I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.

Spaceguy1 One

The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations. The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.

Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.

It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.

http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/06/the-crimea-referendum-15-percent-for-myth/

vr13vr

This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere. There are obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by street disturbance and stone throwing.

Beckow

Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia they will come out and protest in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. Their side also needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.

That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tattoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western connections. That's the way democracies should work.

About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an interesting point. There were students from Lviv who were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?

Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues are involved?

rezevici

Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the "patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.

The ethics of Russians will be on display.

Anette Mor -> rezevici

There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform and patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots. Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists or national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not opposition.

They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very complex process.

PeraIlic

by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid, everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle thrown,":blin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no evidence.

There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.

Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?

We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from 2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...

...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.

Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?

RandolphHearst -> PeraIlic,

You antipathy against the author speaks volumes about the contents of his article.

susandbs12 , link

All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine. We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.

And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.

daffyddw

Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Bless you all, little brothers.

susandbs12 -> daffyddw

Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.

Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.

Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different views from you, so what?

LaAsotChayim

Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid" implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?

How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!

Anette Mor -> Strummered

Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does not bring any good.

A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net. Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith, nationalities and social groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came from USSR including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per nation, no matter how big or small.

The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of majority. That is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.

kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests

kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.

http://moscow.usembassy.gov/democracy.html

and this is only one of them, many more in budget.

MartinArvay

pro-democracy protesters? like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK? They are right

[Oct 21, 2015] An invitation to Putin regarding Ukraine Do the maths

Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted. ..."
"... Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to add value (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either. ..."
"... Im still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring. ..."
"... This loan assumed that there wouldnt be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all... ..."
Oct 21, 2015 | FT Alphaville

Martin Wolf was fuming about Russia on Wednesday - incensed specifically about its stance towards Ukraine's attempted debt restructuring. He really doesn't like the fact that Russia's refusal to join August's $18bn deal with private bond holders will block Ukraine's access to IMF money, promising to collapse the country's economy.

Along the way, Wolf notes that there's a solution on the table here, albeit one that Russia is unlikely to accept. It comes from Adam Lerrick of the American Enterprise Institute - a man with some form in coming up with elegant solutions amid sovereign debt crises. (See Iceland, Greece and also Argentina.)

Here's Lerrick's detail on Ukraine, along with a table for Putin and pals…

Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted.

The American academic's approach actually accepts a core Russian claim - that the concessional terms of Russia's original loan put it on a different footing from private creditors in that Ukraine signed up to pay a coupon of 5 per cent, at a time when regular bond market investors would have demanded 12 per cent or more. But Lerrick then suggests that Russia be compensated for this concession (in the form of higher interest rates on newly issued replacement bonds), before then accepting the private creditor restructuring terms.

You can read the two options in full below. They look fair to all involved, which probably means there's no chance of Russia accepting the idea at all!

The Dork of Cork.

Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to "add value" (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either.

Upaswellasdown

What exactly will Russia do if it is not repaid? invade?

Pseudonym

I'm still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring.

ukrainewatcher

Really angers me, as this was political loan to finance last dying days of Yanukovich's regime. Probably used to pay towards the violence of the following months and to the cash that was taken out of the country in trucks. Russia consequently cost Ukraine's economy billions of dollars, through invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine against very explicit guarantees provided by most superpowers (including US, Russia and UK) provided in return for dismantling world's third largest nuclear arsenal. Obligations that are in my books pretty much worthless, yet Ukraine continues to fulfil today (still destroying long term missiles as we speak)

And Ukraine still needs to deal with them as though they are normal creditors?

Something very wrong with the world of you ask me.

violet17

It was a political loan...correct! And it is a sovereign loan. And that is what the fuss is about!! This loan assumed that there wouldn't be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all...
FearTheTree
@ukrainewatcher Isn't the same true of Argentina. How much of its 80B in contested debt was used to support Menem and his cronies, thinking that the dollar-peso peg would hold indefinitely?

[Oct 18, 2015] A journal of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science publishes the truth about Donbass. Panic ensues

Notable quotes:
"... Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from Donetskis , but also from Kievskis , Lvivskis , Rivnenskis and others, wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific publication. ..."
"... Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law ..."
Fort Russ
Enrique Ferro's insight:

"Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote A. Lopata.

... ... ...

According to the scientist, this revolution was nothing more than a coup.

"Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from "Donetskis", but also from "Kievskis", "Lvivskis", "Rivnenskis" and others," wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific publication.

In addition, Lopata qualified the war in the Donbass as the genocide of the people in the east of the country by the army of Ukraine. "Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote A. Lopata.

The author also points out that "the authorities of the country have made a decision to urgently direct the entire Maidan "fuel" material to Eastern Ukraine;" and that "there is no aggression of Russia against Ukraine, but instead there is a US war with Russia in Donbass "to the last Ukrainian."

[Oct 18, 2015] Irrational Unrequited Love of Ukrainians for the West

This is how neocolonialism works: "global village' wants to move to "global town", while global town mercilessly exploits it.
Notable quotes:
"... There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing, they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their geopolitical preferences . Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately, revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy. ..."
"... Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now, Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic prospects of the alliance with us. ..."
"... public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. Ive already talked about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West is able to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression . This explains such a persistent and irrational focus on Europe. ..."
"... it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is not much higher than what was revealed by the survey. ..."
Oct 15, 2015 | Fort Russ
Most citizens of "independent" Ukraine are disappointed with Maidan, but they still believe in Europe

The public consciousness in Ukraine continues to amaze with its irrationality. This is confirmed by the poll conducted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES).

Despite the fact that the majority of Ukrainians acknowledge that Euromaidan did not meet their expectations, a dominant sentiment in Ukraine is in favor of the pro-Western geopolitical course.

49% of respondents are of the opinion that Ukraine should better strive to deepen relations with Europe, while the percentage of those who prefer a closer relationship with Russia is only 8%.

At the same time 56% of Ukrainians believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction, and only 20% hold the opposite opinion. The notion that the country is moving in the wrong direction is spread across the country and is shared by the majority of citizens in each region.

The survey was conducted on the territory of Ukraine, controlled by the Kiev government, without regard to the views of some four million people living in the LPR and the DPR.

It would seem that in the last eighteen months Europe has demonstrated that it is in no hurry to recognize Ukraine as its "own". Western aid is given precisely in those volumes that prevent the final collapse of Ukraine's statehood. At the same time, due to the influx of Western goods and severance of economic ties with Russia hundreds of Ukrainian enterprises are closed. The latest news in this regard: in Ukraine it has become unprofitable to produce even sugar leading to the closing of 15 sugar mills.

The situation in the post-Maidan economy of Ukraine is much worse, however it has not affected the unrequited love of Ukrainians to the West. Why is this the case and what will be the outcome?

- We must understand that the process of Ukraine's reorientation to the West began long before the Maidan, - says the Head of the Center for Political Research of the Institute of Economics, Head of the Department of International Relations of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Federation Boris Shmelev. - For a quarter century that has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, more than one generation of Ukrainians has grown who are convinced that it is necessary not to be friends with Russia, but with Europe. That only this friendship with the West will ensure the prosperity of Ukraine.

There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing, they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their "geopolitical preferences". Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately, revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy.

"SP": - Why a year and a half since the "February coup" have not convinced Ukrainians that the EU is not going to make Ukraine a member state and that the West is helping Kiev only to the extent that the pro-Western regime does not collapse?

- Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now, Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic prospects of the alliance with us.

"SP": - But it is impossible to escape the logic: as long as Ukraine maintained relatively good relations with Russia, the situation in the Ukrainian economy was more or less tolerable. And as soon as Kiev finally turned towards the West, the economy began to crumble ...

- All this is true. But public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. I've already talked about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West is able to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression". This explains such a persistent and irrational focus on Europe.

"SP": - And can we explain such a low percentage of Russian sympathizers by the fact that some respondents, especially in the South-East of Ukraine are afraid to openly express their opinions?

- Yes, it is possible. Although, it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is not much higher than what was revealed by the survey.

[Oct 17, 2015] Russia's 'Import Substitution' Isn't Working

Mark Adomanis became a turncoat and defected to the "dark side". Some problems for Russia are given. Still it is pretty valiant attempt in view of the dominance of the USA in world economy and, especially, finance. Also this is form of economic attack of EU: some European firms lost Russian market "forever". So far American firms are fared better but Coca-cola, Pepsi, chicken producers, and McDonalds might suffer.
Oct 15, 2015 | http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/10/15/russias-import-substitution-isnt-working/

Some very intelligent people saw this coming a long way off, accurately predicting that heightened tensions with America and the European Union would empower precisely those areas of the Russian economy that the West wants to see weakened

... ... ...

From the second quarter of 2014 through the second quarter of 2015, the ruble value of Russia's imports decreased by almost 30% (the ruble value of exports, meanwhile, actually increased). That's actually not terribly surprising. When a currency depreciates as much as the ruble has over the past year you would expect imports to take a significant hit.

But what has happened to domestic manufacturing? Has Russian business stepped into the space vacated by Western goods that are no longer affordable to many Russian consumers?

So far, at least, the answer is a definite no. Official Rosstat data show that through the first half of 2015, Russian manufacturing actually shrunk by about 2.8%. The only sectors of the economy to show any growth were agriculture (up 2.4%), natural resource extraction (up 2.4%), and public administration (up 0.7%). The areas of the Russian economy where private business predominates, particularly consumer retail, have been absolutely walloped, with the overall retail sector shrinking by almost 9% over the past six months.

... ... ...

Victor Lar 2 days ago

Russian Cheese Production Surges 30% After Ban on Western Imports: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-cheese-production-surges-30-after-ban-on-western-imports/521891.html

[Oct 16, 2015] ISIS on verge of defeat as Russian jets cut off arms supplies

World News Daily Express

Earlier this week Putin accused US official of having "mush for brains" after they refused hand over intelligence about ISIS targets.

He said: "We asked on the military level to give us the targets which they consider to be the terrorist ones for sure, 100 per cent. But the answer was: 'No, we are not ready to do that'.

"Then we thought and asked another question: 'Then could you tell us where we should not hit?' Again, no answer. So, what should we do?"

Washington and its allies have suggested Russia is seeking to prop up Bashar al-Assad's regime rather than defeat ISIS.

But Putin hit back, saying his country wants to "contribute to the fight against terrorism" which threatens "the whole world".

[Oct 13, 2015] The headline is a bit over the top but relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate

Warren , October 11, 2015 at 10:59 am

RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria

As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/raf-given-green-light-shoot-down-hostile-russian-jets-syria-1523488

Moscow Exile , October 11, 2015 at 12:50 pm

"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."

The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?

The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified source is quoted as saying.

That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was being threatened by the passenger aircraft.

Patient Observer , October 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm

Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able to hit back hard?

marknesop , October 11, 2015 at 9:53 pm

Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity. So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around his position.

[Oct 12, 2015] In Midst of War, Ukraine Becomes Gateway for Jihad

A new player among far right forces in Ukraine...
"... Photos: Tomasz Glowacki ..."
"... Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander ..."
"... At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym. ..."
Feb. 26 2015 | theintercept.com
"OUR BROTHERS ARE there," Khalid said when he heard I was going to Ukraine. "Buy a local SIM card when you get there, send me the number and then wait for someone to call you."

Khalid, who uses a pseudonym, leads the Islamic State's underground branch in Istanbul. He came from Syria to help control the flood of volunteers arriving in Turkey from all over the world, wanting to join the global jihad. Now, he wanted to put me in touch with Ruslan, a "brother" fighting with Muslims in Ukraine.

The "brothers" are members of ISIS and other underground Islamic organizations, men who have abandoned their own countries and cities. Often using pseudonyms and fake identities, they are working and fighting in the Middle East, Africa and the Caucasus, slipping across borders without visas. Some are fighting to create a new Caliphate - heaven on earth. Others - like Chechens, Kurds and Dagestanis - say they are fighting for freedom, independence and self-determination. They are on every continent, and in almost every country, and now they are in Ukraine, too.

In the West, most look at the war in Ukraine as simply a battle between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian government. But the truth on the ground is now far more complex, particularly when it comes to the volunteer battalions fighting on the side of Ukraine. Ostensibly state-sanctioned, but not necessarily state-controlled, some have been supported by Ukrainian oligarchs, and others by private citizens. Less talked about, however, is the Dudayev battalion, named after the first president of Chechnya, Dzhokhar Dudayev, and founded by Isa Munayev, a Chechen commander who fought in two wars against Russia.

Ukraine is now becoming an important stop-off point for the brothers, like Ruslan. In Ukraine, you can buy a passport and a new identity. For $15,000, a fighter receives a new name and a legal document attesting to Ukrainian citizenship. Ukraine doesn't belong to the European Union, but it's an easy pathway for immigration to the West. Ukrainians have few difficulties obtaining visas to neighboring Poland, where they can work on construction sites and in restaurants, filling the gap left by the millions of Poles who have left in search of work in the United Kingdom and Germany.

You can also do business in Ukraine that's not quite legal. You can earn easy money for the brothers fighting in the Caucasus, Syria and Afghanistan. You can "legally" acquire unregistered weapons to fight the Russian-backed separatists, and then export them by bribing corrupt Ukrainian customs officers.

"Our goal here is to get weapons, which will be sent to the Caucasus," Ruslan, the brother who meets me first in Kiev, admits without hesitation.

WITH HIS WHITE hair and beard, Ruslan is still physically fit, even at 57. He's been a fighter his entire adult life. Born in a small mountain village in the Caucasus, on the border between Dagestan and Chechnya, Ruslan belongs to an ethnic minority known as the Lak, who are predominantly Sunni Muslim.

The world that Ruslan inhabits - the world of the brothers - is something new. When he first became a fighter, there wasn't any Internet or cell phones, or cameras on the street, or drones. Ruslan joined the brothers when the Soviet Union collapsed, and he went to fight for a better world, first against the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. He then moved to Azerbaijan, where he was eventually arrested in 2004 on suspicion of maintaining contact with al Qaeda.

Even though Ruslan admits to fighting with Islamic organizations, he claims the actual basis for the arrest in Azerbaijan - illegal possession of weapons - was false. Authorities couldn't find anything suspicious where he was living (Ruslan was staying at the time with his "brothers" in the jihad movement) but in his wife's home they found a single hand grenade. Ruslan was charged with illegal weapons possession and sent to prison for several years.

In prison, he says he was tortured and deliberately housed in a cell with prisoners infected with tuberculosis. Ruslan took his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, accusing the authorities in Azerbaijan of depriving him of due process. The court eventually agreed, and asked the Azerbaijani government to pay Ruslan 2,400 euros in compensation, plus another 1,000 euros for court costs.

But when Ruslan was released from prison, he didn't want to stay in Azerbaijan, fearing he would be rearrested, or even framed for a crime and again accused of terrorism. "Some of our people disappear and are never found," he says. "There was one brother [who disappeared], and when he was brought for burial, a card was found showing that he was one of 30 people held in detention in Russia."

In Russia, a warrant was issued for Riuan's arrest. Returning to his small mountain village was out of the question. If he goes back, his family will end up paying for what he does, anyhow. "They get to us through our families," he says. He condemns those who refused to leave their own country and fight the infidels. This was the choice: either stay, or go abroad where "you can breathe freedom."

"Man is born free," Ruslan says. "We are slaves of God and not the slaves of people, especially those who are against their own people, and break the laws of God. There is only one law: the law of God."

After his release from prison in Azerbaijan, Ruslan became the eternal wanderer, a rebel - and one of the brothers now in Ukraine. He came because Munayev, now head of the Dudayev battalion, decided the brothers should fight in Ukraine. "I am here today because my brother, Isa, called us and said, 'It's time to repay your debt,'" Ruslan says. "There was a time when the brothers from Ukraine came [to Chechnya] and fought against the common enemy, the aggressor, the occupier."

That debt is to Ukrainians like Oleksandr Muzychko, who became one of the brothers, even though he never converted to Islam. Muzyczko, along with other Ukrainian volunteers, joined Chechen fighters and took part in the first Chechen war against Russia. He commanded a branch of Ukrainian volunteers, called "Viking," which fought under famed Chechen militant leader Shamil Basayev. Muzychko died last year in Ukraine under mysterious circumstances.

Ruslan has been in Ukraine for almost a year, and hasn't seen his family since he arrived. Their last separation lasted almost seven years. He's never had time to raise children, or even really to get to know them. Although he's a grandfather, he only has one son - a small family by Caucasian standards, but better for him, since a smaller family costs less. His wife calls often and asks for money, but Ruslan rarely has any to give her.

IN THE 17th century, the area to the east of the Dnieper River was known as the "wilderness," an ungoverned territory that attracted refugees, criminals and peasants - a place beyond the reach of the Russian empire. Today, this part of Ukraine plays a similar role, this time for Muslim brothers. In eastern Ukraine, the green flag of jihad flies over some of the private battalions' bases.

For many Muslims, like Ruslan, the war in Ukraine's Donbass region is just the next stage in the fight against the Russian empire. It doesn't matter to them whether their ultimate goal is a Caliphate in the Middle East, or simply to have the Caucuses free of Russian influence - the brothers are united not by nation, but by a sense of community and solidarity.

But the brothers barely have the financial means for fighting or living. They are poor, and very rarely receive grants from the so-called Islamic humanitarian organizations. They must earn money for themselves, and this is usually done by force. Amber is one of the ideas Ruslan has for financing the "company of brothers" fighting in eastern Ukraine - the Dudayev battalion, which includes Muslims from several nations, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even a few Russians.

The brothers had hoped the Ukrainian authorities would appreciate their dedication and willingness to give their lives in defense of Ukrainian sovereignty, but they miscalculated. Like other branches of fighters - Aidar, Azov and Donbass - the government, for the most part, ignores them. They're armed volunteers outside the control of Kiev, and Ukraine's politicians also fear that one day, instead of fighting Russians in the east, the volunteers will turn on the government in Kiev. So ordinary people help the volunteers, but it's not enough. The fighters associated with the Ukrainian nationalist Right Sector get money, cars and houses from the rich oligarchs.

Ruslan has a different plan. He's afraid that if they begin stealing from the rich, the Ukrainian government will quickly declare their armed branch illegal. He's decided to work in the underground economy - uncontrolled by the state - which the brothers know best.

Back in the '90s, the amber mines in the vast forests surrounding the city of Rivne were state-owned and badly run, so residents began illegally mining; it was a chance at easy money. Soon, however, the mafia took over. For the right daily fee, miners could work and sell amber to the mafia at a fixed price: $100 per kilogram. The mafia conspired with local militia, prosecutors and the governor. That was the way business worked.

As a result, although Ukraine officially produces 3 tons of amber annually, more than 15 tons are illegally exported to Poland each year. There, the ore is processed and sold at a substantial profit. The Rivne mines operate 24 hours a day. Hundreds of people with shovels in hand search the forest; they pay less to the mafia, but they extract less amber and earn less. The better off are those who have a water pump. Those people pump water at high pressure into the earth between the trees, until a cavity 2 to 3 meters deep forms. Amber, which is lighter than water, rises to the surface.

At one point, Ruslan disappeared in Rivne for several weeks. When he returned, he was disappointed; he'd failed to convince the local mafia to cooperate with the brothers' fight for an independent Ukraine. But now, he has other arguments to persuade them. His men are holding up the mines, by not allowing anyone into the forest. Either the local gangsters share their profits, or no one will get paid.

Ruslan doesn't like this job. He knows it won't bring him any glory, and could land him in prison. He would have preferred to be among the fighters at the front lines, where everything is clear and clean. He says he can still fight, but he's already too old to really endure the rigors of battle, even if he doesn't want to admit it. He may still be physically fit, but fighters don't usually last longer than a few years. Then they lose their strength and will to fight.

He has other orders from Munayev: he's supposed to organize a "direct response group" in Kiev. The group will be a sort of rear echelon unit that take care of problems, like if someone tries to discredit the Dudayev battalion. It will also collect debts or scare off competition. There's no doubt the new branch will work behind the lines, where there isn't war, but there is money - as long as you know where to get it. If need be, the direct response group volunteers will watch over the mines in Rivne, or "will acquire" money from illegal casinos, which operate by the hundreds in Kiev.

Ruslan sends me photos of the group's criminal exploits: they came into the casinos with weapons, and broke into the safes and slot machines. They disappeared quickly, and were never punished. The money went to food, uniforms, boots, tactical vests and other equipment necessary for the fighters. The mafia knows they can't beat them at this game. The brothers are too good, because they are armed and experienced in battle. The police aren't interested in getting involved either. In the end, it's illegal gambling.

I told Ruslan that it's a dangerous game. He laughed.

"It's child's play," he says. "We used to do this in Dagestan. No one will lift a finger. Don't worry."

RUSLAN FINALLY DROVE me to see his "older brother," to Isa Munayev, and his secret base located many miles west of Donetsk.

Riding in an old Chrysler that Ruslan bought in Poland, we drove for several hours, on potholed and snowy roads. Ruslan had glued to the car one of the emblems of Ukraine's ATO, the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation, which includes both soldiers and volunteers in the fight against separatists.

The bumper sticker allows him to drive through police traffic stops without being held up - or if he is stopped, they won't demand bribes as they do from other drivers. The ATO sticker, Ruslan's camouflage uniform, and a gun in his belt are enough to settle matters. Policemen salute him and wish him good luck.

He drives fast, not wanting to rest, sleep or even drink coffee. If he stops, it's to check the compass on his belt to check the direction of Mecca. When it's time to pray, he stops the car, turns off the engine, places his scarf in the snow and bows down to Allah.

Asked whether - after so many hardships, after so many years, and at his age, almost 60 now - he would finally like to rest, he answered indignantly, "How could I feel tired?"

There's much more work to do, according to Ruslan. "There's been a small result, but we will rest only when we've reached our goals," he says. "I'm carrying out orders, written in the Holy Quran. 'Listen to God, the Prophet.' And I listen to him and do what I'm told."

On the way into the city of Kryvyi Rih, we met with Dima, a young businessman - under 40 - but already worth some $5 million. He's recently lost nearly $3 million from his business in Donetsk, which has been hit hard by the war. Dima worked for Igor Kolomoisky, one of the oligarchs who had been funding Ukraine's volunteer battalions. Dima and Ruslan have only known each other for a short time. Ruslan claimed Dima owed him a lot of money, although it's unclear from what. Ruslan kept bothering him, threatening to blackmail him. Finally, he got $20,000 from Dima.

That's not nearly enough to support the Dudayev battalion. But Ruslan had something bigger to offer Dima: amber. Now, Dima was ready to talk. He came up with the idea to find buyers in the Persian Gulf, including wealthy sheikhs. They would like to sell an entire house of amber: furniture, stairs, floors, and inlaid stones. It only takes contacts, and Ruslan has them. The brothers from Saudi Arabia like to help the jihad in the Caucasus and the Middle East.

The next day, Ruslan was behind the wheel again. The old Chrysler barely moved, its engine overheated. A mechanic with an engineering degree and experience working in Soviet arms factories connected a plastic bottle filled with dirty water to the radiator using a rubber hose.

"I don't know how long I'll last," Ruslan says suddenly. "It depends on God. I'll probably die on this road. But I don't have any other road to take."

Photos: Tomasz Glowacki

Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander

* At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym.

The material for this story is part of BROTHERS, a documentary film being developed for Germany's broadcaster WDR – Die Story and Autentic, produced by Propellerfilm, broadcast date May 18th, 10pm (MET).

[Oct 10, 2015] Obama Launches A Proxy War On Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Russia bombed some of the CIAS trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didnt receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful: ..."
"... Erdogans AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation. ..."
"... Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi young leader deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org
But instead of building on that agreement and of further working with the Russians, the U.S. is now slipping into a full war by proxy against the Russian Federation and especially with its contingent in Syria. Obama had claimed that he would not get drawn into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but his administration, the Pentagon and the CIA, is now doing all it can to create one. The Russian support for Syria is not limited. With the U.S. administration now moving into a position where war on Russia in Syria becomes the priority the fighting in and around Syria will continue for a long time.

The official Pentagon program to train Syrian insurgents will cease to vet, train, arm and support those mercenaries. But the program will not end. The Pentagon will simply shorten the process. It skips the vetting and training part and will arm and support anyone who proclaims to want to "fight ISIS":

The move marks an expansion of U.S. involvement in Syria's protracted ground war and could expose the Obama administration to greater risks if weapons provided to a wider array of rebel units go astray, or if U.S.-backed fighters come under attack from forces loyal to Assad and his allies.
...
Under the new plan, leaders of groups already battling the Islamic State undergo vetting and receive a crash course in human rights and combat communications. Many of them have already received that training outside Syria, officials said.

Eventually the Pentagon plans to provide ammunition and basic weapons to those leaders' fighters and would carry out airstrikes on targets identified by those units.

We know how well things go when some rogue proxies identify targets they want the U.S. air force to hit. The destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz and the 50 something killed in the U.S. attack on it, on request of Afghan special forces, tell the story.

Significant military aid to those fighters, in an area where Islamist extremist groups are mixed with and often fighting beside moderate opposition rebels, would mark a departure from previous U.S. policy. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter, declined to give specifics on any new aid that might arrive in northwest Syria. But the official said that "these supplies will be delivered to anti-ISIL forces whose leaders were appropriately vetted," and described them as "groups with diverse membership."

That would be these diverse groups which all include al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Shams and other Jihadis. Even if not directly given to them the fact that al-Qaeda demands a "toll" of 1/3 of all weapons going through its controls, and sometimes takes all, shows that this program is effectively a direct, though unacknowledged, armament program for al-Qaeda.

The new program is separate from a CIA-led effort to aid rebel factions in Syria. It was not immediately clear how Friday's announcement might affect the CIA program.

The CIA runs a similar but much bigger program since 2012. Weapons are handed out to everyone who wants to take down the Syrian government. Most of those weapons have landed in the hands of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

Indeed it is the CIA, under its torture justifying chief Brennan, which has pushed the Obama administration away from Kerry's conceding statement and into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

Russia bombed some of the CIA'S trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didn't receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful:

Reports indicate that CIA-trained groups have sustained a small number of casualties and have been urged to avoid moves that would expose them to Russian aircraft. One U.S. official who is familiar with the CIA program - and who like other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters - said the attacks have galvanized some of the agency-equipped units. "Now they get to fight the Russians," the official said. "This improves morale."
...
Brennan departed for the Middle East last week as the Russian strikes intensified. U.S. officials said that the trip was previously planned and not related to the bombings but acknowledged that his discussions centered on Syria.

...
The decision to dismantle the Pentagon's training program - whose small teams of fighters were often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria - may force Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.

U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target civilian aircraft.

The person who told the Saudis to deliver 500 TOW missiles to Syria ASAP was likely CIA chief Brennan. He also ordered to plan for attacks on the Russian base.

So instead of a calming down and cooperation with Russia to fight the Islamic State the Pentagon was told to shorten its program and to hand out weapons to everyone who asks. The CIA is feeding more weapons to its mercenaries via its Gulf proxies and is planning for direct attacks on Russians.

The war on Syria, and now also on Russia, is unlikely to end in the near future. With the U.S. throwing more oil into the fire the war will burn not only in Syria but in every other country around it.

Two suicide bombers blew themselves up today at a rally of the Kurd friendly HDP party in Ankara. Some 90 people were killed and some 200 wounded. This is the biggest terrorist attack modern Turkey has ever seen. The Turkish government disconnected the country from Twitter and forbid any reporting about the terror attack. The HDP party is leftist and supports a peaceful struggle for Kurdish autonomy. The militant Kurdish PKK in Turkey is currently fighting skirmishes with Turkish security forces in the east of the country. It has now announced that it will stop all attacks unless when it is attacked first. The sister organization of the PKK in Syria, the YPK, is currently fighting against the Islamic State. Erdogan's AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation.

Whatever else it was, the bombing, very likely by Islamic State suicide bombers, is a sign of an ongoing destabilization of Turkey. The instability will increase further until there is a major policy change and a complete crackdown on any support for the Jihadis in Syria as well as a complete closure of the Turkish-Syrian border.

Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi "young leader" deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so.

[Oct 07, 2015] Chris Hayes and Paul Wolfowitz, Amazing Interview

YouTube

OldPhart

Here's a full taste of Wolfowitz as he was interviewed by some metro-sexual I've never heard of...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0-wwFE_DaM

The faggot's got some solid points over Wolfowitz.

[Oct 03, 2015] Moscow and Kiev in positive mood over talks to end east Ukraine conflict

Notable quotes:
"... The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. ..."
"... But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, ..."
"... I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree? ..."
"... Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia. ..."
Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 20:37

Dear, you refer to "one blonde said!". On some vague feelings, assumptions... Enough speculation about Crimea, please! Let's stick to facts! Crimea 80% of the population - Russian. Not only Pro-Russian, and ethnic Russians. Russia does not need were the little green men of Crimea! But for drunk and scared of the Ukrainian military in the Crimea, for the Wahhabis, who through the streets went to the cars with black flags for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, importing explosives and suitable for shooting on the streets, probably Yes. Crimea was similar to the Autonomous Republic, until authonomy has destroyed by abandoning the Constitution. It was abolished by the President! Crimea held a referendum for secession from Ukraine long before the coup in Ukrainein 2014 .

Note that the Americans tried to seize Crimea under the guise of NATO exercises! Was absolutely illegal attempt to build an American military base in Crimea for the U.S. Navy landed the Marines on may 26, 2006, of which the citizens of Crimea dishonorably discharged. And during the state coup in Ukraine in the Black Sea suddenly a us warship.

In Debaltsevo the Ukrainian neo-Nazis fought with men that were deprived of the government, the President, sovereignty, language, external management is introduced, destroyed the economy. Take away the right to life. Whose wives, parents and children every day are killed by shells from anti-aircraft weapons in schools, hospitals, shops, bus stops, fill up with planes of white phosphorus, the water is shut off and the light stopped issuing wages and pensions, imposed humanitarian blockade.

To fight with desperate men, defending their home, or engage in rape and looting among the civilian population, where the majority of the elderly, women, children - different things.

Sarah7 -> Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:58

One more thing:

Actually, the first photograph accompanying this piece by Shaun Walker shows Poroshenko looking particularly angry and miserable -- if looks could kill, Merkel would be in big trouble!

That said, in the same photo, Putin appears calm, sanguine, and in a very 'positive mood' compared to his counterparts. Go figure.

Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:49

Moscow and Kiev in 'positive mood' over talks to end east Ukraine conflict

If you look at the photographs that accompany the following piece, Poroshenko does not appear to be in a 'positive mood' over the recent meeting of the Normandy Four, and Merkel looks like she is going to spit nails. Perhaps this explains their dour faces:

Checkmate!

3 October 2015

Finally the Penny Drops: Merkel Admits Crimea is Part of Russia
http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151003/1027980523/merkel-admits-crimea-is-part-of-russia.html

German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the first time publically accepted the fact that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and that the peninsula will stay as part of Russia, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma, said on his Twitter account, according to Gazeta.ru. (Emphasis added)

"Important: After a meeting in Paris, Merkel for the first time admitted that Crimea won't return to Ukraine. That means the crisis is only about the east of the country," Pushkov wrote. (Emphasis added)

The Normandy Four talks on Ukraine reconciliation concluded in Paris on Friday.

The leaders of the Normandy Quartet countries managed to agree on the procedure of the withdrawal of heavy weapons in eastern Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.

"We were able to agree on the withdrawal of heavy weapons," Merkel said following the Normandy Four talks in Paris. "There is hope for progress. We are moving toward each other."

On the whole, the results of Friday's Normandy Four talks in Paris set a positive tone, Angela Merkel said, adding that she was satisfied with what the participants achieved during the meeting.

The Normandy Four are planning to meet for a followup in November, presumably to keep Poroshenko in compliance and moving head with the implementation of Minsk II.

PS -- It was the evil Putin wot done it!

HollyOldDog -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 18:55

The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. This mess is for Ukraine alone to sort out and Mikheil Saakashvilli is not the man for the job - his corruption runs far to deep for any action that is more than cosmetic.

BMWAlbert -> Елена Соловьева 3 Oct 2015 18:38

IDK the number of Russian nationals in the Donbas forces, something between 1-10K as a rough guess, these are not formal formations (some are organized at the battalion level as all-Russian units, just an observation from the Russian language news coverage of the closing of Debaltsevo earlier this year, e.g. so called "Khan" battalion, this is just televised news, but there must be more than one such unit, hence the estimate-there are enough weapons captures from UAF in the earlier battles also to arm a small army in Donbas, but this does not rule-out direct supplies (I would imagine something low-key and NOT the big white convoys), this would be the natural minimal level of support I would infer/expect in this case and seems a fair inference. I am not replicating mindless statements from ATO leaders, and remember that Rada twice tried

Crimea was an autonomous region in UA and with rights to hold a referendum under the early 2014 UA Constitution and an earlier legal attempt in 1993 was surprised, also that RU had large forces already legally stationed in Crimea/Krim according to the Kharkov treaty and that in some cases, civic authority, Sebastopol by the RU naval command being a case in point-a continuation of old practices. My sense from personal friends is that among the young, and old generally, the pro-RU sentiment in Krim is strong (incl. one girl with whom I have lost contact, who works there in what is now RU, due to current conditions).

But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, this includes well-educated people, ibcl. in one case (a blonde) the desire to 'exterminate' the Russians-but I would not count the opinions in Donbas as only those enduring the bombardments, there are also many refugees, many in RU itself of course, whose opinions vary from those expressed sometimes here with all due respect, so yes it is complicated.


HollyOldDog -> William Snowden 3 Oct 2015 18:13

Putin wants Ukraine to succeed but the only way it can do this is for the Ukrainian citizens to take over its government and boot out the Self-serving Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have their place in Ukraine but that is to stay out from forming Government decisions and confine their endeavors to modernizing and improving the infrastructure of Ukraine Industrial base which would improve the finance and conditions for all of Ukrainian citizens. It's going to be a difficult road but Russia and the EU can help, though clinging on to the influences of the USA would surely be a retrograde step.

Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 18:07

What's so complicated? The war is real or not! Evidence of finding the 200 000 Russian soldiers in Lugansk and Donbass, or have or not! Crimea after the collapse of the USSR was a disputed territory, which Ukraine annexed unilaterally, without considering the opinion of the Russian Federation and, more IMPORTANTLY, against the wishes of the citizens of the Crimean Republic, which, actually, was constitutional and presidential, while Ukraine did not destroy this status! It is Ukraine annexed the Crimean Republic, and the Russian city Sevastopol, which is in the Republic even geographically not part of, Mr. specialist on Ukraine! Demarcation implies the absence of territorial disputes. And, by the way! Another monstrous stupidity of your media! Poor Ukraine after the coup d'état, followed by the external management of the country by the EU and the US are terrorized by the evil Russian, because it is weak and has no nuclear weapons because of the Treaty of non-aggression from the Russian Federation? Really? Ukraine did not pay its portion of external debt of the USSR and the Russian Empire, therefore, is not the successor,and cannot claim to nuclear power status! Ukraine is a priori not have a right to this weapon, because it was not the owner initially, as the successor! The coup in Kiev was held under the slogan "Cut all Russians!", which in Ukraine 2 years ago, it was a few million, and that is what they are doing throughout the Ukraine, especially in Eastern Ukraine and was planning to do in Crimea. The burning of people in Odessa - a vivid example.

Beckow -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 17:11

You cannot survey people in the middle of a civil conflict on how much they like or dislike what is described as the "enemy". It simply cannot be done, the numbers are meaningless.

Look at Ukraine's economy and you will see the future of this conflict. The living standards are down so low that all else will become meaningless - people actually care about their incomes and living standard.

Your slogans about "illegal", "privileged sphere" are not what any of this is about, they are not what people in Ukraine think about or what matters to them. But if you insist on slogans, there is one simple answer: Kosovo. West bombed Serbia, killing about a thousand civilians, to force Albanian separation in Kosovo. All talk about "international law" is kind of meaningless after that.

Informed17 -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 15:53

I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree?

Manolo Torres -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 15:49

I have condemned the actions of the Russian government in chechnya many times, if you are going to speak about anyones hypocrisy, you should at least know with whom are you talking.

Manolo Torres
9 Sep 2014 09:42
0 Recommend
Look, I already replied, I wasn´t careful with my question. Of course the Russians have committed many abuses, namely the war in Chechnya. I also explained the differences between that war and the wars by US/NATO that have simply no justification on grounds of self defense.


My concern with human life was shown by my condemnation of every violent act: the massacre in Odessa, the airstrikes and shelling that killed thousands in Ukraine, the war in Iraq and Syria, the war in Chechnya or the neo-nazi movement inside Russia (as we were discussing yesterday before you started shouting and got overwhelmed by the numbers I showed you).

As for the Ukrainians I don´t you are as stupid as to blame Putin for the Ukrainian governments shelling of residential areas. And perhaps you know that there is an investigation for MH17.

i am not like you Rob, I am not a fanatic and I only make judgements when I think I know the facts. You are just shouting and looking every time more ridiculous.

A good start for you would be to say that you stand corrected for the Amnesty report. Do it, I have done it, feels good.

Can I do anything else for you?

Laurence Johnson -> gimmeshoes 3 Oct 2015 14:15

Poroshenko is in a bit of a legal quagmire as his government has not at any stage controlled the entire nation and its borders at any time. His current claim on Eastern Ukraine in legal terms is more a wish list than a legal document of fact.

His only path is partition to legalise his government to govern what they have today, or to negotiate the handing over of East Ukraine to his governments control in order that he can legitimately govern the entire nation and its borders. An invasion of East Ukraine is probably not going to work legally, or on a more practical basis.

Informed17 -> Worried9876 3 Oct 2015 14:10

This is too categorical. Chocolate man wants anything that allows him to keep cashing in on his "president" title. The only thing that's unacceptable to him is if his masters try to prevent his thievery. Then he is likely to become angry and unpredictable. Might even remember about Ukraine, although that's highly unlikely.

elias_ 3 Oct 2015 14:04

Looks to me like Putin wins. Crimea in the bag, the eastern regions stay in Ukraine with enough clout to prevent nato membership and keep the nazis at bay. And stupid EU and US get to pay the bill for reconstruction. The sanctions hurt all sides but are forcing much needed reforms in his country, he may even become a net exporter of food products instead of importing from the eu. He gets a refund for the Mistrals and makes the poodle French look untrustworthy. Oh well, serves the sneaky bastards right (you know who i mean "fuxx the eu").

Laurence Johnson -> Alexzero 3 Oct 2015 14:03

Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia.

[Oct 02, 2015] The pretense that it was a Russian invasion in Donetsk is exactly that, a pretense.

At fist I thought that Twaddleradar, member since Aug 9, 2015A is a new NATObot. It it looks like he is a regular Russophob... Still amazingly prolific spamming the whole discussion. It's definitly not enough for him to state his point of view and voice objection. Such commenting incontinence is very disruptive in Web forums.
Notable quotes:
"... WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit. ..."
"... The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. ..."
"... Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much. ..."
Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

ID075732 2 Oct 2015 22:51

Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This old chestnut again... Evidence please of this sweeping claim?

No mention of Putin drafting the Minsk agreement, this is what happened. Then presenting it as a road map for a resolution to the Ukrainian Civil war? As I recall it was Merkell and Holland who rushed to Moscow in February to meet with Putin and thrash out a solution which was then presented to Poroshenko.

As the USA is now in an election cycle and with the Syrian War on Isis takes centre stage with Russian involvement, it looks like the their sock puppet, Petro Poroshenko has been hung out to dry. Finally being told to get back in his box... for now, probably as no more funds via the IMF will be directed into this proxi-conflict if it continues (well they were breaking their own rules giving Ukraine money when it's at war with itself).

Finally, this made me smile...

It has been a busy diplomatic week for Putin, who has not been a frequent guest in western capitals over the past year

Actually Putin has had a very busy diplomatic year building international partnerships across Asia and the BRIC's, Trade agreements with China and Saudi Arabian investment into Russia. The Silk Route project and much more. It seems to me some of the Graun's journalists should get out more, like Putin has been doing!

PrinceEdward -> Twaddleradar 2 Oct 2015 21:12

Meanwhile every Ukrainian male is so full of patriotism, there is no need for a 5 draft rounds in Ukraine because they're flooding with so many volunteers, they turn them away. Stories of parents paying $1000 to get their kids out of the draft, or countless thousands of 20-something Ukrainians running away to Russia and Poland to get student visas, is just propaganda.

MrJohnsonJr 2 Oct 2015 21:07

Ukraine has a fucking nerve to require a diplomatic effort to have it explained to them what a murderous losers the turned out to be and that another of their "revolutions" brought nothing but a major waste of human life and EU and Russian taxpayer money.

KriticalThinkingUK 2 Oct 2015 20:39

Its great isnt it what can be achieved when Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine get together for serious negotiations. Just like in Minsk 1 and 2 when the same group first established peace in Ukraine, behind the backs of the USA and UK who were pointedly not invited to those talks either.

What is the key to this progress? Simple. Dont invite the rightwing cold war loonies to attend. Keep them out at all costs. That is to say exclude from all talks USA, UK, NATO, Poland and the rest of the crazy warmongers who have worked so hard to encourage conflict.

If these negotiations are successful expect further progress over the next decade in other spheres between Germany and Russia. In fact objectively by all measures it is in the long term interests, both economic and political, for these two major European powers to co-operate as natural trading partners....the US warmongers worst nightmare!

Interesting times................

Mazuka 2 Oct 2015 20:35

" Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit.

NotYetGivenUp -> HHeLiBe 2 Oct 2015 19:18

You confuse Crimea, which voted for secession after Russian forces ensured Kiev military didn't engae in anti-secessionist reprisals (as stated by Putin), with East Ukraine, in which Kiev generals admitted they were fighting Donbass forces, not Russian forces.

The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. But any honest appraisal of the facts on the ground, through observation of events as they happened, show that the rejection of the Kievan coup was by the people of Donbass, and is a popular rejection, not the nonsense Russian invasion peddled by the media in the west.

Mr Russian 2 Oct 2015 19:13

The compromise plan would involve the Ukrainian parliament passing a law stating these elections were indeed legal, but they would be organised by the rebels.

Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much.

[Sep 28, 2015] Violence instead of democracy: Putin slams policies of exceptionalism and impunity in UN speech

"Do you realize what you've done?" -- Putin about recent US sponsored color revolutions.
Notable quotes:
"... instead of reforms and the triumph of democracy and progress "we've got violence, poverty and social disaster, and human rights, including the right to life, to which no weight is given." ..."
"... "Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself," ..."
"... "Therefore they do not have to reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing, legitimizing the necessary decisions often creates obstacles or in other words 'stands in the way'." ..."
Sep 28, 2015 | RT News

The export of so-called 'democratic' revolutions has continued, but has unleashed poverty and violence instead of the triumph of democracy, Russian President Vladimir Putin said addressing the UN General Assembly.

Attempts to push for changes in other countries based on ideological preferences have led to "tragic consequences and degradation rather than progress," said Putin in his speech to world leaders and policy makers gathered at the UN General Assembly's anniversary 70th session in New York on Monday.

"We should all remember what our past has taught us," Putin said. "We, for instance, remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union."

It seems however that some are not learning from others' mistakes, but keep repeating them, he said, adding that "the export of so-called 'democratic' revolutions continues."

"I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done?" he asked. "But I am afraid the question will hang in the air, because policies based on self-confidence and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned."

He cited the example of revolutions in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where people have wished for change. However, instead of reforms and the triumph of democracy and progress "we've got violence, poverty and social disaster, and human rights, including the right to life, to which no weight is given."

"Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself," he said.

... ... ...

A single center of domination emerged in the world after the Cold War era ended, Putin stated. Those who were at the "top of this pyramid" were tempted to think that "if they were so strong and exceptional, they knew what to do better than others."

"Therefore they do not have to reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing, legitimizing the necessary decisions often creates obstacles or in other words 'stands in the way'."

[Sep 27, 2015] US On The Ropes China To Join Russian Military In Syria While Iraq Strikes Intel Deal With Moscow, Tehran

Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
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.

[Sep 08, 2015] Yatsenyuk fought in Chechnya - Russia's Investigative Committee

UNIAN news

Ukraine's current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk used to fight in Chechnya against Russia, according to Aleksandr Bastrykin, head of Russia's Investigative Committee, reports Ukrainska Pravda citing the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

The Russian investigators have questions to the Ukrainian citizens Dmytro Korchinsky, Ihor Mazur, Valery Bobrovich of the UNA-UNSO, the leader of the Right Sector Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Svoboda Party Oleh Tiahnybok and his brother Andriy in connection with the war in Chechnya in 1994-1995, according to Bastrykin's interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Ukrainska Pravda reported.

"The investigation also found that at the time, Arseniy Yatsenyuk fought by their side against the Russian military as part of Argo punitive group, and later - Viking, led by Oleksandr Muzychko," said Bastrykin.

"According to the investigation, Yatsenyuk took part in at least two of the armed confrontations that took place on December 31, 1994, on the Minutka square in Grozny and in February, 1995, outside the city hospital 9 in Grozny; as well as in torture and executions of prisoners," he said.

In addition, Bastrykin says that Yatsenyuk was conferred Honor of the Nation Dzhohar Dudayev's highest Honor of the Nation title in December, 1995.

"In early 1995, Arseniy Yatsenyuk returned to Ukraine via Georgia with a group of journalists. Later, he was repeatedly seen at conventions and other events of UNA-UNSO in Kyiv," said Bastrykin.

According to the official biography of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in 1995, he had studied law at the University of Chernivtsi.

UNIAN memo. UNA-UNSO) is a Ukrainian political organisation seen as far-right in Ukraine and abroad. Although the Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) was the organisation's political wing, on 22 May 2014 it merged with Right Sector; the UNA-UNSO continues to operate independently.

Oleksandr Muzychko was a Ukrainian political activist, a member of UNA-UNSO and coordinator of Right Sector in Western Ukraine. Russian prosecutors accused him of killing "at least 20" captive Russian soldiers during the First Chechen War. The inquiry by the Russian Investigative Committee began in March 2014, years after the alleged killings. Muzychko jumped into media spotlight on February 27, 2014, after attacked the Prosecutor of the Rivne region in his office. On 11 March 2014, Russian State Duma opposition leader Valery Rashkin urged Russian special services to "follow Mossad examples" and assassinate Right Sector leaders Dmytro Yarosh and Muzychko. On 24 March, 2014, Oleksandr Muzychko was shot dead.

[Sep 03, 2015] Kievs week of violence is a crisis of its own making

Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one.
They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show."
.
"...Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred."
.
Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has achieved.
.
Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told. He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity."
.
"...Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government: (1). He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do. (2). He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again."
.
"...Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention."
.
"...When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through violence. I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's constitutional proposals."
.
"...I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!"
.
"...I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.
The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising."
Notable quotes:
"... I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically. ..."
"... - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks... ..."
"... "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war." ..."
"... It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better. ..."
"... Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils? ..."
"... A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft. ..."
"... In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us. ..."
"... It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus. ..."
"... Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!). ..."
"... Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face. ..."
"... February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings. ..."
"... These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue. ..."
"... History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS. ..."
"... Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement. ..."
"... The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government. ..."
"... Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one. ..."
"... Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred. ..."
"... The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy". ..."
"... Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention. ..."
"... Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella. ..."
"... I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves! ..."
"... idan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place. The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke. ..."
Sep 03, 2015 | The Guardian

Another version has it that the explosion outside parliament was orchestrated by the president's administration or the Ukrainian special services in order to discredit Svoboda and other radical nationalists and to "tighten the screws" on the political life of the country thus justifying control over opposition forces.

This version hardly stands up to criticism. The demonstration was led by MPs who are members of Svoboda but got into parliament as independent candidates. In the 2014 elections Svoboda did not win the 5% of the vote necessary to enter parliament. Four months earlier, in the presidential election, the party's leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, won only a little over 1% of the vote. This week he was photographed, together with other Svoboda activists, trying to drag a soldier out of the human chain formed around parliament into the crowd of protesters. It was a moment very reminiscent of the Maidan days, only that then Svoboda members and their leader were inside parliament. Since then the party has found itself increasingly marginalised.

However, there were other groups represented in the demonstration , among them two that deserve special attention: Oleg Lyashko's radical party and Igor Kolomoisky's Ukrop party. T-shirts with the latter party's emblem were given out free at the demonstration, and those willing to take part were paid to protest. Kolomoisky is considered to be an enemy of President Poroshenko since he was sacked from his position as governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region. Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili.

Immediately after the blast, Lyashko, who is a radical populist with little in common with the radical nationalists, announced the establishment of a campaign to save the nation. Only three or four hours after the explosion, his party had already registered a bill that would block changes to the constitution at times when the country is under military attack. Lyashko came second in the presidential elections, and over the last year his Radical party has gone up in the ratings. It is interesting that articles in the press regularly claim to have evidence that both the Svoboda party and the Radical party have been financed by the same oligarchs, the above mentioned Kolomoisky, Sergey Levochkin – who was head of the presidential administration under Yanukovich and who fled to Moscow after the Maidan – and Dmitry Firtash, who is now being investigated on corruption charges in Austria.

Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation. To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan. There were also volunteers who had no affiliation to any party who went to fight. When the Ukrainian army took over the main role in the fighting, many of the volunteers returned home, taking weapons with them.

nnedjo 3 Sep 2015 16:18

Well, the purpose of the constitutional changes in Ukraine should be that rebels in the southeast stop fighting and accept Ukraine as his country, and not Ukrainian nationalists to stop throwing grenades at the police in Kiev. However, these laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament, can contribute very little that the main objective. Their main goal is just to create the illusion that Ukraine really is trying to comply with the requirement of Minsk 2 agreement, and thus to meet the expectations of their Western friends, which means to prevent lifting of sanctions against Russia. And, on the other hand, these laws need to be completely contrary to the expectations of the rebel peoples in Donbas, or in other words to achieve the same thing that the Ukrainian government unsuccessfully tried to achieve with weapons.

It is particularly interesting that the President of Ukraine Poroshenko himself makes no secret at all that it is true what I've previously written, as can be understood, among other things, also from those of his statements:

According to the president, "the threat of break-up of the international pro-Ukrainian coalition" would have increased if the Verkhovna Rada had not voted in favor of decentralization amendments to the constitution on Monday.

It could also lead to the lifting of sanctions, which "are very painfully hitting the aggressor," he said, apparently, referring to Russia, which Kiev blames for sending troops to war-torn eastern Ukraine....

...But what they [Donetsk and Lugansk Regions] have got instead is a lean line about the features of local self-governance," Poroskenko stressed.
So, even though the law that caused the protests in front of parliament has the name of "decentralization", in fact it needs to further strengthen the competence of the central government. Based on this law, the Presidency received the right to appoint a prefect, who with his hand has the discretionary right to dismiss officials elected at the local elections in certain regions. And if they do not like it, they can appeal to the constitutional court in Kiev, where were apparently is known in advance what may be the decision of the constitutional court.

On the other hand, the law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk, which was passed earlier, is practically suspended at this point by the recent decision of the President Poroshenko.

In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize two things.

Although according to the Minsk 2 arrangement, the special status of the Donbas region should have been incorporated as an integral and permanent part of the Ukrainian Constitution, the law, which is now suspended, does not meet any of these two demands.

This law therefore is attached only as an annex to the Ukrainian constitution, and its validity is limited to just three years. And, according to the idea of Ukrainian legislators, the law can come into force only after the local elections in Donbass which would be held under the previous Ukrainian legislation, and when Ukrainian forces take control over the whole territory of Ukraine, including its entire border with Russia.

Until then, they will be consider that Donbas region is temporarily occupied part of Ukrainian territory, and officials of the People's Republic of Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republic will be considered as terrorists. And since with the terrorists must not be negotiations, leaders of the LNR and DNR were completely excluded so far from discussions about the law on the special status, which is also contrary to the Minsk 2 agreement, given that it explicitly requires just that.
All in all, they are asking the pro-Russian rebels that lay down their arms voluntarily, without getting anything in return. Or more accurately, to get just a little bit of what they are looking for and only for a period of three years. So, congratulations on wishful thinking, but the question is whether it is achievable at all.

LimaCPapa -> ridibundus 3 Sep 2015 15:48

I first learned about this when a new Ukrainian student introduced himself, and we asked why the name he gave was not the name on his papers. He explained (with clear annoyance) that he had to use a Ukrainian name. He had to keep it while he was here as well, because it was the name in his passport. Now he's free of all that and uses his Russian name. Needless to say, he did not return to Ukraine. Another Ukrainian has since confirmed that the same thing was true for her passport. In both cases, issued in the early 2000s. So who's lying then?

beakybloom -> gablody 3 Sep 2015 13:34

What's inherited??.. The bankrupt economy, loss of Crimea, loss of Donbass, 6000 dead, civil war, downing of Malaysian airliner with 300 souls on board, Odessa massacre, murders of political opponents, the nazi parliament, stupid laws glorifying Ukraine's nazi past, no visa-free access to EU, Nazis throwing grenades at the police???..

Nothing here is inherited except the absence of visa-free access to EU

a "show on the road" ? On IMF funny money? For how long? It's a shitshow, and unsustainable to boot.


nnedjo -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 13:28

The putinposters are still reeling with the news that the Ukrainian government is fighting "Nazis" in Kiev,...

It will be possible to say just when the news arrives that the organizers of these demonstrations were sentenced to a few tens of years in prison, and that guy who threw this grenade from which the Guardsmen killed, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

What is quite unbelievable judging by the past behavior of government from Kiev.

Chillskier -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 10:43

Georgia tried:
http://agenda.ge/news/26188/eng
Apparently Interpol red notices cannot be issued against US stooges.

Chillskier -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 10:20

The piece of shit she CHOSE to work with.
Jewish neo-con skunk and neo-Nazi thug seems like a match made in heaven.

jezzam -> Chillskier 3 Sep 2015 10:19

Go ahead then. I can't wait. Neither can Poroshenko. His best option is passive resistance when Putin launches his next land grab. Russia will be forced to give it back eventually when they are totally bankrupt

Bosula -> RVictor 3 Sep 2015 08:55

The congregation is mostly made up of ethnic Ukrainians, members of a community that numbers hundreds of thousands and has been growing rapidly since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.


This is what the Guardian reported on 13 May 2015 - this was JUST for Poland:

"Last year Poland issued 331,000 permits for short-term work to Ukrainians, up 50% on 2013, says Marta Jaroszewicz, a migration expert at the Centre For Eastern Studies (OSW), an independent Warsaw thinktank funded by the Polish government.

She estimates that there are now 300,000-400,000 Ukrainians in Poland, as many as twice the officially recognised number. In January and February, the number of residence applications by Ukrainians in the Mazovian voivodeship – the province which includes Warsaw – was up 180% on the same months of 2014."

There are other articles for other neighbouring countries bordering Ukraine, but the Guardian is a pretty authoritative source.

Since this story the number crossing the border to leave Ukraine has increased significantly.


FlappyCat 3 Sep 2015 08:20

Poroshenko to Transnistria..
Yats to Macedonia and
Saakishwilly to Tajikistan.


oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:12

I read the Gorby's interview where he said 'Yes' about the NATO promises.But he's a fool nevertherless to beleive the promises,written or verbal from his enemy.


elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:07

>>He's trying to provoke Putin.

Hmm in that case you have proved Poroshenko is a fu##ing idiot. Only an idiot would set out to provoke the leader of a neighbouring country into invading. Is that what you lot voted him in for? No, it isn't. He should be making peace and securing the future for his people. Face it, your leader is taking orders from Pyatt and you know it.

BigBanana 3 Sep 2015 07:50

"Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili"

Jeez, Saakashvili is a stupid appointment for a very long list of reasons. He's the idiot who got Georgia dismembered after misjudging the situation terribly.

It's as if Poroshenko is deliberately trying to fuck things up.

HuffingHume -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 07:41

All of the ex-Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic states, are horribly corrupt dysfunctional kleptocracies run by Soviet era bigwigs who carved up their state's assets up for themelves, leaving most of their fellow countrymen in poverty. This is the reason why many Ukrianians want to be more 'European'; because they want to be more like Poland and the Baltic States, rather than in the Russian orbit, in which every state has barely made it out of the 80's.


Dimmus -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:15

"It was the right wing Svoboda Party that started the trouble, definitely not a 'peaceful protest' as you make out. "

I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically.

RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:14

Putin has a record of false flag operations, starting with the Moscow apartment block bombing performed by the FSB when he was head and which brought him to power.

And the proof is ... o, yes, - something written by oligarch in exile! Btw., here is a short list of admitted FF operations be US and it's vassals. Remember "Iraq WMD"?

oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:10

Why being invaded by Putin, Ukraine is trading a discount for gas, [and asks for ] deferral of loan?

irishinrussia -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:03

It's irony. He is implying that when protesters the west likes kill policemen then they at peaceful demonstrators, perhaps defending themselves against brutal security forces, at worst any violence is the action of a few hotheads or extremists among overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic victims of the state. However, when the very same protesters attack our guys (Poroshenko), they are radicals, extremists and terrorists, perhaps abetted by shadowy enemies of freedom and democracy (FSB).

PanoptikonicallyKool -> Briar 3 Sep 2015 06:15

Shhh!!!! You are not supposed to say things like that! 'US backed coup'? That is not part of the story. And it's ancient history history, no connection to current events. In fact it didn't even happen, according to repectable news sites. Or they don't mention it, so it must not have happended . The US, as the article states, or rather doesn't state, or rather doesn't even mention, has nothing to do with political events inside Ukraine, that's why we never read anything about it. Did Russia do it or not do it? That's the only serious question for anything that happens in Ukraine.

US involvement in Urkaine? Harrruuumph! Conspiracy theory! And don't bring it up again!

Dimmus 3 Sep 2015 06:15

"But the media has been busy throwing up theories about who has most to benefit from this terrorist attack. "

- Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks...


ositonegro -> BastaYa72 3 Sep 2015 06:11

"Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war."

It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better.

RVictor -> oleteo 3 Sep 2015 06:01

Poroshenko Blames Russia For Police Deaths

paulrou -> kennyboy 3 Sep 2015 05:21

How can anyone not take the US state department's line. It is the truth. Ergo, everyone else is paid by the Russians.

Калинин Юрий -> elias_ 3 Sep 2015 04:59

He does not answer the questions, he blames Putin in all the world's sins and universe disasters. Global warming - Putin, extreme heat in the EU - Putin, police conflicts in the USA - Putin. Ask him, wh has scratched a car by a shopping mall last month - Putin!

RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:53

The West has not broken international law since the Iraq invasion.

Support and organization of governments overthrow all around the world? War in Libya? Killing with drones on foreigns territories? Bombing of Syria territory?

Theo Humbug -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 04:52

Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils?

RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49

Why does Georgia not get Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for Saakashvili? Ukraine would have to comply. The answer is obvious. They would not get one because the charges against Saakashvili are politically motivated, like most of the corruption charges in Russia.

Right - like any West institution Interpol is so-o-o independent, exactly like International Court!

Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49

I have come to realise that Jizzem is just a Turing Bot.

Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:48

HAHAHAHAHA... Are you serious? Which planet are you on? Do you think people forget that quickly? A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft.

jonsid -> Mark Elliott 3 Sep 2015 04:46

In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us.

Theo Humbug -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 04:41

You clearly have a very bad memory. The Russian offer of cancelling debt and very reasonable prices for fuel was very attractive to the ELECTED government of Victor Yanukovych and far far better than the EU offer, which was why they were all for accepting the Russian offer and aligning more with Moscow..

But the USA can't have any country deciding it's own fate if it is not in accord with the Lords of this Universe.

The neocon organised and paid for putsch, Maidan Shootings, Odessa burnings, put a stop to any agreement beneficial to the Ukrainians and opened the way for the IMF to come in and steal the wealth of yet another country.

There is no excuse for anybody not to know these recorded and verifiable FACTS.

elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:36

You are fixated on Putin - you must be a not so secret admirer. Why don't you answer Tomov's question. What has Poroshenko achieved since becoming President?

RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 04:34

It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus.

So I show you official numbers of registered refugees in EU - and amount of unregistered cannot be high due to immigration laws and functioning police system.

On over side, number of 400000 is taken from nowhere - go on and proof it.

Salut_Salut -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:32

If you are such a hard-core proponent of sanctions policy, then may be you can name the beneficiaries of it in EU? Farmers? Businesses? Common people? Methinks - only politicians following in the wake of Uncle Sam's guidelines. The President of Russia is no way a role model or a paragon country leader, but seeing him behind every corner is nothing but a bout of anti-Russian paranoia. People of that long-suffering country aren't actually represented by him only.

Theo Humbug 3 Sep 2015 04:29

How far back does history go?

Lat week, last month, Maidan Square, the fall of the Soviet Union?

If taken that far back, then people will surely remember Ronnie Raygun's promises to Gorbachev that no NATO forces would encroach on former Soviet territory. Ehh?? What??

Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!).

So called separatists voted to stay with Russia, with whom they identified, despite the lies and propaganda from the US/West/Nato including premature accusations of responsibility fro the shooting down of MH17 .. funny how 1) the US never released it's data (another Pentagon "plane"?) 2) that has all gone very quiet... Wonder what they found?

Perhaps the putschist regime and/or their neo-neocon pay/puppet-meisters have woken up to the very real danger of putting nazties withing 'Cooee' of nuclear weapons?

Of course, one does not need to be a nazti to call for nuclear mass murder. The blond plaited heroine of the right, the ex jailbird, ex Prime Minister (for ganesh sake!!) Tymoshenko called for the nuking of Donbass, if I remember correctly.

Russian now has the major Western forces and neonazis on their border. President Putin has to deal with these murderers and the great unwashed, living in their encapsulating bubbles of Newspeak and reality cooking shows, are told by the Mudorc press and other propagandists that it is Russia that is pure evil.

I wish there were a god.

Tony Cocks -> danhudders 3 Sep 2015 03:59

" The airliner was almost certainly downed by a Russian crew "

But of course you have not one shred of evidence to support your statement in which case would you agree it is valueless and was a waste of your time posting it in the first place.

RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 03:49

I think he said refugees crossed the border ........i am not sure that all refugees fill out the application form?

400000 ? Look on the current 100000's refugees wave from the Asia/Africa to get an expression how it looks like. Or on the last year summer wave of Ukrainian refugees in Russia - with large refugee camps for temporary placements etc. You cannot get 400000 refugees to go "unseen" - especially in case of relatively good-maintained land border.

martinusher 3 Sep 2015 03:09

Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face.

(If you need any indication that something's not quite right in Ukraine then you only have to look to the appointment of Saakashvili as the governor of Odessa last summer. He's best known for his role as a Georgian politician, someone who, among other things, provoked a disastrous confrontation with Russia.)

SHappens 3 Sep 2015 03:07

To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan.

February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

These forces were subsequently beaten in the elections, thus rejected by the Ukrainian people. However the first act of Poroshenko was to legitimate these irregular and illegal militias which, absent in Parliament, have received the far more important power of arms, courtesy of the new mixed Ukrainian-American government. Basically the only difference between the parliamentary majority and the far-right groups is that the first take orders from the West, the latter don't.

These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue.

History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS.

Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement.

Still, Poroshenko and Yatsenuk want more war and call for lethal arms supply. All this while the rating of Ukrainian is now CC with negative outlook.

RVictor -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 03:02

400,000 refugees crossed the borders from Ukraine into the EU over the past year.

You are lying (surprise, surprise!):

"There were 4,603 applications for international protection in Germany, 3,600 in Poland, 2,956 in Italy, 1,962 in Sweden, 1,763 in France, 200 in Moldova, 60 in Romania, 60 in Hungary and 20 in Slovakia," the UNHCR findings highlighted.

vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:16

"Russian TV focused on the events outside the Ukrainian parliament to prove to viewers that chaos reigns in Ukraine. "

And doesn't chaos indeed reign in Ukraine? I thought that was beyond obvious and doesn't need any additional proof.

vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:13

How about the more obvious explanation that Maidan, so much encouraged and celebrated by the West, had taught Ukrainians that it is Ok to attack the police, try to pull away their shields (see the photo above), through molotov cocktail at them (there was a picture on Monday) and grenades in order to pass certain laws in their Rada.

vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:11

How exactly Russia is "profiting" from this? is this author just throwing the sentences around or is he required to fulfill some anti-Russia quota in his article?

ArtofLies -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 02:09

There are undoubtedly going to be further problems with these nationalists, oh come on, we can call the neo-nazi's or neo-fascists here, just because the journalists above the line cant be seen to be propagandising for fascists does not mean that we have to play those semantic games.

the fact is this is the second time these fascists have attacked the police, this time with grenades, the last time it was molotov cocktails, but the media wont criticise them because there is money to be made in the ukraine, not everything is privatised yet and i hear there are still dreams of fracking ukraine to prosperity.

nishville -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 01:43

The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government.

Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one.

They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show.

drrust 3 Sep 2015 01:38

Again you are instigating that the Minsk agreements were reached by western or international powers in general, implying that angloamerica was part of this. The agreement was a sole and very sucsessful initiative of Mrs Merkel, who took a reluctant Holland with her who solely sensed a chance to be viewed as a statesman. The UK had already transports of war material underway.

elias_ -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 01:14

There's million in Russia although many of them may be hiding to avoid military service. Look on the bright side, there's another 40 million of them and I bet most will want to move into the land of milk and honey which is Europe.

MaoChengJi 2 Sep 2015 23:31

"But despite profiting from it, Russia is very unlikely to have perpetrated it"

Oh no, say it ain't so! How can any trouble in this world be caused by something that is not The Dark Lord Putin?

And how is Russia 'profiting' from this, I'd like to know? Isn's this rather a case of the western Russophobe industry suffering a loss?

Well, for sure the Russophobe industry suffering a loss is an undeniable victory for all humanity, but putting it as 'Russia profiting'?.. Oh well, russophobes are weird creatures, I've noticed it a long time ago.

retarius 2 Sep 2015 22:47

Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred.

eric lund 2 Sep 2015 20:43

How the USA rule sway the destinies of Ukraine flooding it with blood

One can get an impression that authorities of Ukraine, totally dependent on State Department of USA, are doing anything – searching for spies, begging for money, getting weapons from USA and Europe, suppressing dissidence, self-advertising and desperate propaganda, but not taking the steps to peaceful regulation of conflict in South-East of the country and its economic rise.

According to the last research of Kiev international institute of sociology the rating of president Petr Poroshenko has fallen three times, down to 13,6%, other candidates don't even get 5%. When authorities are so unpopular, it is only left for them to turn the screws and continue witch hunting at full throttle.

The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy".

In order to strengthen his worthless power Poroshenko fired seemingly over powerful chief of Service of Safety Valentin Nalivaychenko, who had been transmitting information which often put Poroshenko himself in not very bright light, to representatives of USA. And new chief of Service of Safety Vasiliy Gritsak, who is very close to Poroshenko and was the head of his own service of safety, at one dash arrested 40 colonels and generals allegedly for dissidence in his department.
Danger is getting closer for Home Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov. The chief military prosecutor Of Ukraine Anatoliy Matios claimed that members of criminal organization 'Tornado', made on the base of militia and appointed by Avakov from former criminals, had organized secret place in basement floor of school to torture illegally captured people. The Ukrainian patriarch Filareth presented a medal for sacrificing and love for Ukraine, so to say for perverted sadism while torments, which are unofficially legalized by Ukrainian authorities.

At the same time the level of aggression of Ukrainian militaries is only picking up speed. Thus, the Ambassador of Ukraine in USA Valeriy Chalykh without any scruples stated: We are getting weapons, including lethal, and nobody can prohibit it to independent Ukraine. The other thing is that it is not common to disclose these countries, but they are more than 10, only from Europe. We have different level of technical and military cooperation, and at this stage it is only going further.

Chillskier -> Paul Moore 2 Sep 2015 20:42

Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government:

  1. He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do.
  2. He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again.

So it is what Ukraine g-ment does, not what putin tells.


EugeneGur -> Chirographer 2 Sep 2015 20:35

everything would have been wonderful if Ukraine had not decided to finally reject the brotherly embrace of Putin's Russia

Not everything, because by that time Ukrainian authorities have already ruined a lot. However, there is little doubt that Ukraine would've been a hell of a lot better off if it hadn't followed the path of the coup and indulged in anti-Russian hysteria. Has your mother ever told you that quarreling with your neighbors is never a good idea?

Looking at the situation objectively, it is a good thing that the Kiev government is trying to follow the Minsk plan.

Objectively? You? It would be a good thing if it were but it doesn't. These constitutional changes have nothing to do with the requirements for the regional autonomy set out in Minsk II. Nor have they been agreed to by the Donbass representatives, which makes the whole thing pointless. But even these miserable changes had to be pushed through by Nuland, because Rada initially refused to approved them. There are 13 points in Minsk II and so far Kiev fulfilled none of them.

Jeff1000 2 Sep 2015 20:30

Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has achieved.

Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told.

He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity.

Julian1972 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:54

I know! I know!

Still, when the US funds its various Intelligence Agencies and Covert Overseas Operations Organizations to levels beyond that which most of the rest of the world combined spend on their actual militaries, it's hard not see why they end up being suspected of having sticky fingers in various pies.

Poor, innocent US...after all, all that money's just being spent on ergonomic seating and biodegradable paperclips, right? Hahahaha!

nnedjo 2 Sep 2015 19:51

There is one more possible theory, which seems that the author has failed to notice.
Thus, due to the fact that the proposed legislation is far from what was envisaged by Minsk 2 agreement, and in particular is far from what would satisfy the pro-Russian rebels, the following question arises:
Does this event may have been aimed to strengthen the claim that this bill is the most that Ukraine can offer to the pro-Russian rebels, because, "for God's sake, even for this Ukrainians began to kill each other in the middle of Kiev"?


TomFullery -> Chillskier 2 Sep 2015 19:47

You are right about Ukraine's economy. I visit fairly often and each time I get more Hryvnia for my Euros. Plus the restaurants are empty so you are guaranteed good service from serving staff desperate for a tip to supplement their meagre wages (so much for joining the US "democratic" system!).

Strange that the Nazi putsch in Kiev has benefited me (who wouldn't piss on them if they were burning) rather more than 99% of Ukrainians.

Although I do notice that the Kiev Nazis seem to have taken one step in the direction of moderation - the shrine to the Nazi Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera which was there erected about the time of the putsch has now disappeared (most likely moved to a less conspicuous location).

Julian1972 -> desnol 2 Sep 2015 19:44

Dead right.

In penning the written equivalent of 'The Picture That Fooled the World':

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/guest/LM/lm-f97/LM97_Bosnia.html

maybe, at least, his 'confusion' is a symptom of his conscience trying to find it's voice. Hehehe, maybe there's hope for him yet?

Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention.

NorthOfTheM25 2 Sep 2015 19:42

The Ukrainian regime in as much as they try so hard to have a resemblance of 'western values' (whatever that means) & to avoid behaving like the powers that be at the Kremlin. At the end of the day have the same approach in how they apportion blame & deflect attention from their obvious failings.

When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through violence.

I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's constitutional proposals.

TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:35

His Ukraine policy has two main prongs.

1. Make Putin realise that military aggression against his neighbours carries too high an economic penalty to be worthwhile.

Nothing got military until the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev. Strategic imperatives trump short term economic considerations and Russia has reacted skilfully to the attack by the US using Ukraine as a proxy (much to Ukraine's detriment)

2. Support Ukraine economically until it becomes a prosperous liberal democracy, like the rest of Europe (Russia excepted of course).

Ukraine will be asset-stripped by US corporations. Ukraine will not be a prosperous, liberal democracy in your lifetime and neither will the US.

His policy seems to be working very well.

Oh dear!

Chillskier -> normankirk 2 Sep 2015 19:33

Link to the story that will challenge the spotless mind of jezzam:
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/08/28/ukrainischer-oligarch-bereichert-sich-an-iwf-krediten/

Oligarchs in Ukraine are doing extremely well, obviously not a concern for a coup sponsors.

normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:33

Want an example of a twist?

Kerry warning Poroshenko against resuming hostilities, retaking territory in breach of the Minsk agreement, then less than a week later Nuland rushing to Kiev to egg Poroshenko on, thoroughly endorsing his plans

Hanwell123 -> Knapping 2 Sep 2015 19:28

He was the idiot who jumped the gun in the CIA plan to create a war in 2008. He went before the whistle shelling an unprotected and unwarned city hours before he was supposed to. One of Asias prize fools. So Poroshenko's made him - a non Ukrainian - Governor of Odessa. Great stuff Poro!

TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:27

Despite Yanukovich's corruption he did a decent job of steering Ukraine down the middle path between Russia and the US/EU and he was nobody's proxy. As for his corruption he was a mere pickpocket compared to the like of Timoshenko who is not on any Ukrainian, EU or US corruption list!

This wasn't good enough for the neocons in Washington who wanted the whole country - hence their instigation of the Nazi putsch in Kiev. It's gone downhill all the way for the Ukrainian people since then considering they have lost a sizeable chunk of territory and now likely having to move to some sort of federal system.

On top of those miseries they now have Finance and Economics ministers from Lithuania and Poland parachuted in by the US and given Ukrainian citizenship on the day of their inauguration to their respective posts. They also have US stooge and ex-Georgian president Sakaashvili and fugitive from Georgian justice parachuted in as governor of Odessa. Let's not forget Joe Biden's son who was appointed to the board of directors of one of Ukraine's biggest energy companies very shortly after the Nazi putsch.

At least the east of the country is out of the hands of US corporate predators but it's a certainty that agreements will be signed (if not already) to turn massive tracts of Ukrainian farmland in the west of that country to US GM giants. I wonder how those US-loving west Ukrainians are going to react when the horrible reality of US-style "democracy" hits home.

NorthOfTheM25 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:24

Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself & sound like a bitter divorcee who has lost a legal battle. Nothing you have said has little bearing with the article.

But I guess each time the key trigger words Russia, Ukraine, Kremlin, Stalin & Moscow are mentioned then just like Putin bots, you are also activated from your dwelling under the bridge to reel out the tired & repetitive anti Putin bellicose rants.

normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:22

except it is the oligarchs who are prospering. Kolomoisky is under investigation for diverting 1.8 billion of IMF money to his own Cyprus bank account. Poroshenkos profits have increased astronomically while all Ukrainians are taking pay cuts.


luckyjohn -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 19:03

Yanukovych contributed a lot to radicalise Ukrainian society. He planned his survival in office by manipulation - stressing Tyannybok's importance to voters so that in the end there would be a choice - Tyaynybok or himself Yanukovych for president. Of course - Yanukovych then wins because the radical Tyahnybok is too "dangerous" to vote in. So much for your democratically elected president Yanukovych! So the presence of radical elements in Ukrainian society is in fact Yanukovych's doing. He was a very divisive president who played on divisions in Ukraine rather than trying to heal them as well as being thoroughly corrupt.


virgenskamikazes 2 Sep 2015 18:37

I would believe the Western version if, after ousting Yanukovich, they would do a 21st century, EU version of a Marshall Plan. If the EU had said to Yanukovich "we want to flood Ukraine with Euro with very low interest and in long term, for investment in infrastructure and industrialization projects - given that you cut ties completely with Russia" and Yanukovich had said "no" to that, than I think it would be fair for the Ukranian people to oust him.

But the EU offered a humiliating, absurd shock therapy style reform, that's why Yanukovich "no". Even imediate full EU, EZ membership was not on the table.

The thing is, the Ukrainian people bought on the fantasy that they could mass emigrate to central Europe overnight had Yanukovich said "yes", that only them had economic problems, that the West is the promised land, that we are still in the Cold War, etc.

Had Yanukovich hold on tight on power until two months ago, after the Greek tragedy, I doubt there would be political strength for the USA and the Ukrainian far-right to oust him.

Beckow -> ArthurJenkinson 2 Sep 2015 18:32

He wrote a long article with bizarre conspiracy theories in order to confuse a very simple attack by a Ukrainian nationalist mob on the police, killing 3 policemen.

The "theories" are there to obfuscate and confuse. We are close to the end game in Kiev and it will not be pretty. And the angry hysteria among Washington, London and Berlin sponsors of this madness will also get uglier. They don't like to lose so they would prefer just about anything to admitting to being defeated in Ukraine.


Julian1972 2 Sep 2015 17:43

Poroshenko's assertion that Russia is to blame for this week's murder of policemen is of the same Frankenstein DNA as his assertion that Russia was behind the downing of Flight MH17 and that the Eastern part of The Ukraine's population are not democrats rising up against an illegal putsch which brought him to power but are simply 'Kremlin puppets'...and therefore justifiably crushed by the same type of gunfire that otherwise had Maidan martyrs held up as 'heroes'. (Even though it was members of their own side doing the shooting, hahaha).

Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.


BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:43

You can't even tell the difference between 'neo-fascist' and 'Nazi'.

If either term comes into your tiny mind it obviously defaults to imagining scenes from the last days in the Führerbunbker - whatever turns you on.

Also, the IMF has always favoured right wing corporatist regimes, preferably with as little democracy as possible.


desnol 2 Sep 2015 17:41

The author's puzzlement and confusion are directly proportional to how little he understands the situation in Ukraine. He keeps wondering about various scenario's, each more absurd than the previous.

I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!

And then, almost at the very end of the article, after all his fanciful, surreal speculation, Andrey Kurkov hits the nail on the head with


"Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation."

But even then he gets it all skewed up, blaming the fact that Ukranian army went to fight the separatists for the fact that the far right thugs are now armed and throwing bombs in Kiev. Doesn't he realise they were armed and throwing bombs in Maidan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place.
The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke.

domeus -> thenewstranger 2 Sep 2015 17:30

At least he is an improvement on all the other Guardian journalists who report on Russia and Ukraine. He connects the right wing group of people behind the killing of the of the policeman in Kiev with those those who volunteered to kill their fellow countrymen in Odessa and throughout the eastern and southern regions. Autonomy for the regions would have solved the problem then and prevented the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. But Nuland had other plans and the western media acted accordingly.

Jessica Roth -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:14

The Maidan "protestors" were the ones who broke the cease-fire, shooting at both the Berkut and their own people. The forensic evidence proved it. Did you not listen to the Urmas Paet-Baroness Ashton phone call?

The "impeachment" of Yanukovich was illegal under the Ukraine constitution, which required a 75% vote. Even with the US-trained thugs forcing MPs to the floor at gunpoint, only 72% of the Ukraine parliament was present for the vote. Poroshenko has no more business being President than the burnt and raped corpses of the people his Azov Nazis butchered in Odessa and Mariupol do. (Although the corpses would probably do a better job.)

bonhiver 2 Sep 2015 16:49

I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.

The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising.

ositonegro 2 Sep 2015 16:44

The Azov battalion also declared they would bring the war to Kiev if not sated in Dombass. You make a fascist revolution and the next move is to institutionalize it. Hitler did this very well, destroying the populist SA movement and assassinating their leaders and incorporating the remainder into the regular army. Then fascism could move forward with the whole state support.

But in Ukraine the EU-US used fascism to make the coup then tried to reign it in. The fascists however cannot be institutionalized. They are still a powerful street movement with the added benefit of having been trained and armed and given military space to grow. Now they are pushing for policy dominance over the regular bourgeois political forces and using bombs to do it. The Azov Battalion always said they would take the war back to Kiev if they felt betrayed.

It has to be understood that Poroshenko is not a fascist, despite coming to power on the back of their efforts. The EU-US do not want the fascists in power. How could Ukraine enter the EU with an outright fascist government? But they are playing with fire, using these street forces and then renouncing them. It will come a time when they do not have either the legitimacy of the power to stop another coup against themselves, and this time with no restraints. Then what will the EU do?

While Greece founders under unsustainable debt and Eurogroup dictatorship, Ukraine is given sweeteners, relieving 20% of their debt - something unimaginable with Greece. But you can't stop a tsunami with Canderel.

[Aug 27, 2015] Fuck the US Imperialism -- Top German Politician Blasts Nuland & Carter

"Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"
Jun 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

With intra-Europe relations hitting a new all-time low; and, having already been busted spying on Merkel, Obama got caught with his hand in Hollande's cookie jar this week, the following exultation from one of Germany's top politicians will hardly help Washington-Brussells relations. As Russia Insider notes, Oskar Lafontaine is a major force in German politics so it caught people's attention when he excoriated Ash Carter and Victoria Nuland on his Facebook page yesterday... "Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"

Here is the Facebook post (in German):

Lafontaine has been an outsized figure in German politics since the mid-70s. He was chairman of the SPD (one of Germany's two main parties) for four years, the SPD's candidate for chancellor in 1990, minister of finance for two years, and then chairman of the Left party in the 2000s. He is married to Sarah Wagenknecht, political heavyweight, who is currently co-chairman of Left party.

Lafontaine's outburst came a day after his wife, Sarah Wagenknecht, blasted Merkel's Russia policy in an interview on RT.

Here is the full translation of the post:

"The US 'Defense' secretary, i.e., war minister is in Berlin. He called on Europe to counter Russian 'aggression'. But in fact, it is US aggression which Europeans should be opposing.

"The Grandmaster of US diplomacy, George Kennan described the eastward expansion of NATO as the biggest US foreign policy mistake since WW2, because it will lead to a new cold war.

"The US diplomat Victoria Nuland said we have spent $5 billion to destabilize the Ukraine. They stoke the flames ever higher, and Europe pays for it with lower trade and lost jobs.

"Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism.

"F*ck US imperialism!"

* * *

When he comes out swinging this way, you know something is changing.

* * *

America - making friends and influencing people for 238 years...

[Aug 09, 2015] Seven countries near bankruptcy

Aug 08, 2015 | usatoday.com

Moody's Investors' Service rates seven countries Caa1 or worse, several tiers lower than Ba1, which still carries a significant credit risk. These countries are approaching or have narrowly escaped bankruptcy. Ukraine is rated Ca, which is currently the lowest credit rating of any country reviewed by Moody's.

... ... ...

Ukraine

> Moody's credit rating: Ca
> Moody's outlook: Negative
> 2015 Gov't debt (pct. of GDP): 94.1%
> 2015 GDP per capita (PPP): $8,278

Ukraine's conflict with Russia over its annexation of Crimea continues to fuel the country's financial problems. While the IMF approved Ukraine's debt restructuring plan in March, Ukraine has the worst credit rating of any country reviewed, downgraded this year from Caa3 to Ca, the second lowest possible level. Creditors can expect a 35% to 65% recovery rate on loans issued by the country. According to Moody's, "The likelihood of a distressed exchange, and hence a default on government debt taking place, is virtually 100%."

The same day that Moody's issued the downgrade, the National Bank of Ukraine announced the establishment of the Financial Stability Council. According to Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriia Gonatreva, the Council's function will be to "take a comprehensive and systemic approach to identify and mitigate the risks threatening the stability of the banking and financial systems of the country."

[Aug 09, 2015] The main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan

marknesop.wordpress.com

yalensis, August 7, 2015 at 2:54 pm

Op-ed by Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst who is considered to be close to the views of the Kremlin:

http://rusnext.ru/recent_opinions/1438977256

According to Markov, Kiev was only interested in the first part of the Minsk Accords, namely in a panic to stop counter-offensive of Novorossiya army, after their debacle at Debaltsevo.

But they have zero interest in carrying out the rest of the accords.

Plus, according to Markov, Kiev is under instructions from their American masters, to continue the war at all costs.
According to Markov, Kiev is actually carrying out a plan called the "Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan", and I googled Gorbulin, but couldn't get any more information, so I don't know who this person is.

But the main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan are said to be:

1. Kiev does not take on any (Minsk) obligations which involve peace-making moves.
2. Full blockade (of Donbass).
3. Continue artillery shelling of residential areas of Donbass, kill as many civilians as possible.
4. This in order to make life unbearable in Donbass.
5. The goal is to turn the residents against their leaders, in DPR and LPR.
6. Weaken Russia with sanctions.
7. Planning a military blitzkrieg against Donbass, on the model of the attack of Croatian army against Serbian Krajina.
8. NATO will station troops in Kharkov, Zaporozhie and Dnipropetrovsk.
9. NATO will beef up Ukrainian army and prepare for fatal strike against Donbass.
10. The police state/dictatorship in Ukraine will be strengthened.

marknesop, August 7, 2015 at 5:45 pm

Volodymyr (Ukraine has to spell it differently so they can all high-five each other, the way the British deliberately misspell "tire") Gorbulin is the former National Defense and Security Council (NDSC) Secretary, now a personal adviser to Poroshenko. Looks a right Himmler type.

[Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

Notable quotes:
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

[Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

Notable quotes:
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

[Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

Notable quotes:
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

[Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

Notable quotes:
"... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
"... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

"Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

"Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

"I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

(Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

[Aug 08, 2015] Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands

Notable quotes:
"... The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

yalensis, August 4, 2015 at 2:04 pm

Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands:

Starting 10 August, Russia will start limiting import of cut flowers from Netherlands.
The pretext is that all cut flowers from Netherlands must go through phyto-sanitary inspection before being admitted into the country.

In Russia, a whopping 90% of all cut flowers are imported. Of this, Europe supplies 40.5%; Netherlands by itself 38.5%. Hence, the new rule is sure to hit the Dutch in their pocketbooks.

The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya.

Recently Russia started forming direct ties with those countries and importing the flowers directly, bypassing Netherlands. This process is expected to continue.

Already, Ecuador is pushing out Netherlands in the Russian market for flowers.

Even China is getting in on the game, starting to supply some of the voracious Russian appetite for cut flowers. Given all these sources of the flowers, Russian consumers are not likely to suffer a deficit of flowers, the article concludes.

[Jul 28, 2015] A Foreig n Enemy is a Tyrant's Best Friend by Dan Sanchez

Antiwar.com

Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away

by Dan Sanchez, July 28, 2015

Print This | Share This

Iran Great Satan

The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country. It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late last year.

Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.

That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.

This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.

Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan." Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable "guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on? Don't you know we're under siege?"

Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.

Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime.

The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.

The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.

Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam, both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.

Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.

Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.

All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond. Disastrously, it is being unheeded.

Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular than ever.

And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:

"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor, the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.

A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."

[Jul 27, 2015] For Greece, Oligarchs Are an Obstacle to Recovery

Notable quotes:
"... ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. ..."
Dec 05, 2012 | The New York Times

ATHENS - A dynamic entrepreneur, Lavrentis Lavrentiadis seemed to represent a promising new era for Greece. He dazzled the country's traditionally insular business world by spinning together a multibillion-dollar empire just a few years after inheriting a small family firm at 18. Seeking acceptance in elite circles, he gave lavishly to charities and cultivated ties to the leading political parties.
But as Greece's economy soured in recent years, his fortunes sagged and he began embezzling money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say. With charges looming, it looked as if his rapid rise would be followed by an equally precipitous fall. Thanks to a law passed quietly by the Greek Parliament, however, he avoided prosecution, at least for a time, simply by paying the money back.

Now 40, Mr. Lavrentiadis is back in the spotlight as one of the names on the so-called Lagarde list of more than 2,000 Greeks said to have accounts in a Geneva branch of the bank HSBC and who are suspected of tax evasion. Given to Greek officials two years ago by Christine Lagarde, then the French finance minister and now head of the International Monetary Fund, the list was expected to cast a damning light on the shady practices of the rich.

Lavrentis Lavrentiadis embezzled money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say

Instead, it was swept under the rug, and now two former finance ministers and Greece's top tax officials are under investigation for having failed to act.
Greece's economic troubles are often attributed to a public sector packed full of redundant workers, a lavish pension system and uncompetitive industries hampered by overpaid workers with lifetime employment guarantees. Often overlooked, however, is the role played by a handful of wealthy families, politicians and the news media - often owned by the magnates - that make up the Greek power structure.

In a country crushed by years of austerity and 25 percent unemployment, average Greeks are growing increasingly resentful of an oligarchy that, critics say, presides over an opaque, closed economy that is at the root of many of the country's problems and operates with virtual impunity. Several dozen powerful families control critical sectors, including banking, shipping and construction, and can usually count on the political class to look out for their interests, sometimes by passing legislation tailored to their specific needs.

The result, analysts say, is a lack of competition that undermines the economy by allowing the magnates to run cartels and enrich themselves through crony capitalism. "That makes it rational for them to form a close, incestuous relationship with politicians and the media, which is then highly vulnerable to corruption," said Kevin Featherstone, a professor of European Politics at the London School of Economics.

This week the anticorruption watchdog Transparency International ranked Greece as the most corrupt nation in Europe, behind former Eastern Bloc states like Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. Under the pressure of the financial crisis, Greece is being pressed by Germany and its international lenders to make fundamental changes to its economic system in exchange for the money it needs to avoid bankruptcy.

But it remains an open question whether Greece's leaders will be able to engineer such a transformation. In the past year, despite numerous promises to increase transparency, the country actually dropped 14 places from the previous corruption survey.

Mr. Lavrentiadis is still facing a host of accusations stemming from hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made by his Proton bank to dormant companies - sometimes, investigators say, ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. But with Greece scrambling to complete a critical bank recapitalization and restructuring, his case is emblematic of a larger battle between Greece's famously weak institutions and fledgling regulatory structures against these entrenched interests.

Many say that the system has to change in order for Greece to emerge from the crisis. "Keeping the status quo will simply prolong the disaster in Greece," Mr. Featherstone said. While the case of Mr. Lavrentiadis suggests that the status quo is at least under scrutiny, he added, "It's not under sufficient attack."

In a nearly two-hour interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis denied accusations of wrongdoing and said that he held "a few accounts" at HSBC in Geneva that totaled only about $65,000, all of it legitimate, taxed income. He also sidestepped questions about his political ties and declined to comment on any details of the continuing investigation into Proton Bank.
Sitting in the office of his criminal lawyer last month, relaxed, smiling and dressed in a crisp blue suit and red-and-blue tie, Mr. Lavrentiadis said he found it puzzling that he had been singled out in reports about the Lagarde list when other powerful figures appeared to evade scrutiny.

"My question is, 'Why me?' " he said. "I'm the scapegoat for everything."

In the interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis depicted himself as an outsider and upstart, an entrepreneur in a small country dominated by old families who frown on newcomers. "I am not from a third-generation aristocratic family," he said repeatedly.

Indeed, by some lights, Mr. Lavrentiadis fell in part because he rose too quickly and then failed to secure enough of the right friends to protect him, a perception he did not dispute.

[Jul 25, 2015] The Eurasian Big Bang How China Russia Are Running Rings Around Washington

Jul 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

The Eurasian Big Bang: How China & Russia Are Running Rings Around Washington

07/24/2015

Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted at TomDispatch.com,

Let's start with the geopolitical Big Bang you know nothing about, the one that occurred just two weeks ago. Here are its results: from now on, any possible future attack on Iran threatened by the Pentagon (in conjunction with NATO) would essentially be an assault on the planning of an interlocking set of organizations -- the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union), the AIIB (the new Chinese-founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), and the NDB (the BRICS' New Development Bank) -- whose acronyms you're unlikely to recognize either. Still, they represent an emerging new order in Eurasia.

Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, Islamabad, and New Delhi have been actively establishing interlocking security guarantees. They have been simultaneously calling the Atlanticist bluff when it comes to the endless drumbeat of attention given to the flimsy meme of Iran's "nuclear weapons program." And a few days before the Vienna nuclear negotiations finally culminated in an agreement, all of this came together at a twin BRICS/SCO summit in Ufa, Russia -- a place you've undoubtedly never heard of and a meeting that got next to no attention in the U.S. And yet sooner or later, these developments will ensure that the War Party in Washington and assorted neocons (as well as neoliberalcons) already breathing hard over the Iran deal will sweat bullets as their narratives about how the world works crumble.

The Eurasian Silk Road

With the Vienna deal, whose interminable build-up I had the dubious pleasure of following closely, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his diplomatic team have pulled the near-impossible out of an extremely crumpled magician's hat: an agreement that might actually end sanctions against their country from an asymmetric, largely manufactured conflict.

Think of that meeting in Ufa, the capital of Russia's Bashkortostan, as a preamble to the long-delayed agreement in Vienna. It caught the new dynamics of the Eurasian continent and signaled the future geopolitical Big Bangness of it all. At Ufa, from July 8th to 10th, the 7th BRICS summit and the 15th Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit overlapped just as a possible Vienna deal was devouring one deadline after another.

Consider it a diplomatic masterstroke of Vladmir Putin's Russia to have merged those two summits with an informal meeting of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Call it a soft power declaration of war against Washington's imperial logic, one that would highlight the breadth and depth of an evolving Sino-Russian strategic partnership. Putting all those heads of state attending each of the meetings under one roof, Moscow offered a vision of an emerging, coordinated geopolitical structure anchored in Eurasian integration. Thus, the importance of Iran: no matter what happens post-Vienna, Iran will be a vital hub/node/crossroads in Eurasia for this new structure.

If you read the declaration that came out of the BRICS summit, one detail should strike you: the austerity-ridden European Union (EU) is barely mentioned. And that's not an oversight. From the point of view of the leaders of key BRICS nations, they are offering a new approach to Eurasia, the very opposite of the language of sanctions.

Here are just a few examples of the dizzying activity that took place at Ufa, all of it ignored by the American mainstream media. In their meetings, President Putin, China's President Xi Jinping, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi worked in a practical way to advance what is essentially a Chinese vision of a future Eurasia knit together by a series of interlocking "new Silk Roads." Modi approved more Chinese investment in his country, while Xi and Modi together pledged to work to solve the joint border issues that have dogged their countries and, in at least one case, led to war.

The NDB, the BRICS' response to the World Bank, was officially launched with $50 billion in start-up capital. Focused on funding major infrastructure projects in the BRICS nations, it is capable of accumulating as much as $400 billion in capital, according to its president, Kundapur Vaman Kamath. Later, it plans to focus on funding such ventures in other developing nations across the Global South -- all in their own currencies, which means bypassing the U.S. dollar. Given its membership, the NDB's money will clearly be closely linked to the new Silk Roads. As Brazilian Development Bank President Luciano Coutinho stressed, in the near future it may also assist European non-EU member states like Serbia and Macedonia. Think of this as the NDB's attempt to break a Brussels monopoly on Greater Europe. Kamath even advanced the possibility of someday aiding in the reconstruction of Syria.

You won't be surprised to learn that both the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the NDB are headquartered in China and will work to complement each other's efforts. At the same time, Russia's foreign investment arm, the Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), signed a memorandum of understanding with funds from other BRICS countries and so launched an informal investment consortium in which China's Silk Road Fund and India's Infrastructure Development Finance Company will be key partners.

Full Spectrum Transportation Dominance

On the ground level, this should be thought of as part of the New Great Game in Eurasia. Its flip side is the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the Pacific and the Atlantic version of the same, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, both of which Washington is trying to advance to maintain U.S. global economic dominance. The question these conflicting plans raise is how to integrate trade and commerce across that vast region. From the Chinese and Russian perspectives, Eurasia is to be integrated via a complex network of superhighways, high-speed rail lines, ports, airports, pipelines, and fiber optic cables. By land, sea, and air, the resulting New Silk Roads are meant to create an economic version of the Pentagon's doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance" -- a vision that already has Chinese corporate executives crisscrossing Eurasia sealing infrastructure deals.

For Beijing -- back to a 7% growth rate in the second quarter of 2015 despite a recent near-panic on the country's stock markets -- it makes perfect economic sense: as labor costs rise, production will be relocated from the country's Eastern seaboard to its cheaper Western reaches, while the natural outlets for the production of just about everything will be those parallel and interlocking "belts" of the new Silk Roads.

Meanwhile, Russia is pushing to modernize and diversify its energy-exploitation-dependent economy. Among other things, its leaders hope that the mix of those developing Silk Roads and the tying together of the Eurasian Economic Union -- Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan -- will translate into myriad transportation and construction projects for which the country's industrial and engineering know-how will prove crucial.

As the EEU has begun establishing free trade zones with India, Iran, Vietnam, Egypt, and Latin America's Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela), the initial stages of this integration process already reach beyond Eurasia. Meanwhile, the SCO, which began as little more than a security forum, is expanding and moving into the field of economic cooperation. Its countries, especially four Central Asian "stans" (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan) will rely ever more on the Chinese-driven Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the NDB. At Ufa, India and Pakistan finalized an upgrading process in which they have moved from observers to members of the SCO. This makes it an alternative G8.

In the meantime, when it comes to embattled Afghanistan, the BRICS nations and the SCO have now called upon "the armed opposition to disarm, accept the Constitution of Afghanistan, and cut ties with Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist organizations." Translation: within the framework of Afghan national unity, the organization would accept the Taliban as part of a future government. Their hopes, with the integration of the region in mind, would be for a future stable Afghanistan able to absorb more Chinese, Russian, Indian, and Iranian investment, and the construction -- finally! -- of a long-planned, $10 billion, 1,420-kilometer-long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline that would benefit those energy-hungry new SCO members, Pakistan and India. (They would each receive 42% of the gas, the remaining 16% going to Afghanistan.)

Central Asia is, at the moment, geographic ground zero for the convergence of the economic urges of China, Russia, and India. It was no happenstance that, on his way to Ufa, Prime Minister Modi stopped off in Central Asia. Like the Chinese leadership in Beijing, Moscow looks forward (as a recent document puts it) to the "interpenetration and integration of the EEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt" into a "Greater Eurasia" and a "steady, developing, safe common neighborhood" for both Russia and China.

And don't forget Iran. In early 2016, once economic sanctions are fully lifted, it is expected to join the SCO, turning it into a G9. As its foreign minister, Javad Zarif, made clear recently to Russia's Channel 1 television, Tehran considers the two countries strategic partners. "Russia," he said, "has been the most important participant in Iran's nuclear program and it will continue under the current agreement to be Iran's major nuclear partner." The same will, he added, be true when it comes to "oil and gas cooperation," given the shared interest of those two energy-rich nations in "maintaining stability in global market prices."

[Jul 15, 2015] Victoria Nuland suddenly arrived in Kiev ; maybe this has something to do with the Yarosh situation?

yalensis, July 15, 2015 at 4:35 am

Meanwhile, Victoria Nuland suddenly arrived in Kiev on surprise inspection I mean visit.

Vickie is expected to stay in Kiev for July 15-16. Her press service says she will visit with politicians, businessmen, and representatives of "civil society". In other words, the usual rogues gallery.

yalensis, July 15, 2015 at 4:38 am
P.S. – or maybe this has something to do with the Yarosh situation?
Some time between today and Sunday, Pyatt and Vickie have to make that fateful decision, whether Yarosh is to be killed; or installed as Prime Minister!
marknesop, July 15, 2015 at 8:03 am
"I think Yarosh is the one with the leadership experience, I think Poroshenko should just stay outside and do his homework, and Yarosh needs to be talking to Yatsenyuk and Tiahnybok (who I notice has been invisible for about a year now, is he even still alive?) and Klitschko three or four times a week. And fuck everybody".

[Jul 13, 2015]International Court Judge Dick Cheney Will Face Trial for War Crimes

Sputnik International
A former judge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) said former US Vice President Dick Cheney should – and eventually will – stand trial for war crimes for his role in the Iraq War.

"Some of us have long thought that Cheney and a number of CIA agents who did what they did in those so-called black holes should appear before the" International Criminal Court (ICC), Thomas Buergenthal said in an interview with Newsweek.

Buergenthal, 81, served as a judge at the ICJ – the main judicial arm of the United Nations – for 10 years before retiring in 2010.

The ICJ, unlike the ICC, has no jurisdiction to try individuals accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity. As the ICJ is not a criminal court, it does not have a prosecutor able to initiate such proceedings.

Buergenthal was born in the former Czechoslovakia and survived the Auschwitz concentration camp as a boy. He is now a US citizen and a professor of law at George Washington University in Washington, DC.

"We (in the United States) could have tried them ourselves," Buergenthal said of Cheney and others. "I voted for Obama, but I think he made a great mistake when he decided not to instigate legal proceedings against some of these people. I think – yes – that it will happen."

As for Cheney's superior for eight years, Buergenthal dismissed former president George W. Bush as "an ignorant person who wanted to show his mother he could do things his father couldn't."

Buergenthal said Richard Nixon, whose administration Cheney served in during the 1970s, was "more intelligent. I don't think Nixon would have got involved in Iraq."

Federal Court: Top Bush-Era Officials Can be Sued for Post-9/11 Detentions

[Jul 10, 2015] The video was meant to look fresh and spontaneous, but researchers back in March unrooted the fact that it was produced by a professionals

yalensis, July 10, 2015 at 4:27 am

In Saakashvili news:
Yesterday Saakashvili showed off for President Porky's approval his 2 new assistants: his left-hand man, and his right-hand girl. They will get important jobs at Saak's side, helping him to rule Odessa Province.

The man (let's get him over with first, so we can concentrate on the girl) is Vladimir Zhmak. He is 51 years old, an Afghan veteran and a businessman. He has no experience in government service which, according to Saakashvili, makes him a perfect candidate for this government position.

Moving along to Saakashvili's "girl Friday", it's none other than 25-year-old Julia Marushevskaya, who became famous during Maidan when a video clip of her went viral.
Marushevakaya is of Ukrainian origin (Odessa Province), but spent most of her student years in the U.S., where she attended 2 prestigious American universities: Harvard and Stanford.

When Maidan happened, Julia became an international media star, with her interviews and video clips about the protests. Her most famous video was entitled: "I am Ukrainian", in which Julia called for people to revolt against the "tyrant" Yanukovych. The video gained around 7 million views worldwide.

The video was meant to look fresh and spontaneous, but researchers back in March unrooted the fact that it was produced by a professional British photographer named Graham Mitchell, and directed by a professional Hollywood director named Ben Moses .
In other words, like everything else about Maidan, the video, and Julia herself, were produced in the West.

[yalensis: and I would bet money that Julia was placed in this position by her American handlers, in order to keep an eye on their erratic Gruzian Gauleiter. Julia may be aware that previous "young things" in Saakashvili's cabinet in Gruzia were expected to sleep with him, as part of the job. Which is why Saak's wife eventually left him. But if Julia is a true CIA pro, then she can keep her natural revulsion down to a manageable level…]

[Jul 09, 2015] Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists

July 7, 2015 | Consortiumnews

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).

[For more on the Azov battalion, see Consortiumnews.com's "US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine."]

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.

[Jul 09, 2015] The Yatsenuk government declared that UNA-UNSO Party, the core of "Right Sektor", collaborated with Nazis in WWII

yalensis, July 9, 2015 at 4:11 pm

Meanwhile, in Ukrainian political news:

The Yatsenuk government actually came out and declared that UNA-UNSO Party (=the core of "Right Sektor") collaborated with Nazis in WWII.

This is a change from their usual b.s. about how UNA-UNSO fought AGAINST the German invaders. This rewriting of history went to ludicrous extremes, when Ukies claimed the Banderites should be designated as "victors" of WWII, along with England, France, etc.
Instead of the losers that they actually were.

But anyhow, what happened yesterday was that Minister of Justice in Ukraine refused to register UNA-UNSO, stating that "this political party fought on the side of the fascists in 1942″.

Pundits see this strange (strange for Ukies, not strange for normal people) step as part of a plan to discredit Dmitry Yarosh and push him out of public life.

[Jul 04, 2015] Paul Krugman Europe's Many Economic Disasters

Jul 04, 2015 | Economist's View

Was the creation of the euro a mistake? Should it be eliminated?:

Europe's Many Economic Disasters, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:

Or to put it a bit differently, it's reasonable to fear the consequences of a "no" vote, because nobody knows what would come next. But you should be even more afraid of the consequences of a "yes," because in that case we do know what comes next - more austerity, more disasters and eventually a crisis much worse than anything we've seen so far.

anne said...

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/02/behind-the-greek-crisis/

July 2, 2015

Behind the Greek Crisis

The usual narrative of the Greek economic tragedy is that the country is paying for its past profligacy, but there is deeper back story of political repression fueled by major powers intervening in Greece and contributing to a dysfunctional political system.
By William R. Polk

Focusing exclusively on the monetary aspects of the Greek crisis the media misses much of what disturbs the Greeks and also what might make a solution possible.

For over half a century, Greeks have lived in perilous times. In the 1930s, they lived under a brutal dictatorship that modeled itself on Nazi Germany, employing Gestapo-like secret police and sending critics off to an island concentration camp. Then a curious thing happened: Benito Mussolini invaded the country.

Challenged to protect their self-respect and their country, Greeks put aside their hatred of the Metaxis dictatorship and rallied to fight the foreign invaders. The Greeks did such a good job of defending their country that Adolf Hitler had to put off his invasion of Russia to rescue the Italians. That move probably saved Josef Stalin since the delay forced the Wehrmacht to fight in Russia's mud, snow and ice for which they had not prepared. But, ironically, it also saved the Metaxis dictatorship and the monarchy. The king and all the senior Greek officials fled to British-occupied Egypt and, as new allies, they were declared part of the "Free World."

Meanwhile, in Greece, the Germans looted much of the industry, shipping and food stuffs. The Greeks began to starve. As Mussolini remarked, "the Germans have taken from the Greeks even their shoelaces…"

Then, the Greeks began to fight back. In October 1942, they set up a resistance movement that within two years became the largest in Europe. When France could claim less than 20,000 partisans, the Greek resistance movement had enrolled about 2 million and was holding down at least two divisions of German soldiers. And they did it without outside help.

As the war's outcome became apparent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was determined to return Greece to the prewar rule of the monarchy and the old regime. He was motivated by fear of Communist influence within the resistance movement.

Churchill tried to get the Anglo-American army that was getting ready to invade Italy to attack Greece instead. Indeed, he tried so hard to change the war plan that he almost broke up the Allied military alliance; when he failed, he threw all the soldiers he still controlled into Greece and precipitated a civil war that tore the country apart. The Underground leaders were outsmarted and their movement was smashed. The bureaucracy, police and programs of the prewar dictatorship resumed control.

After the war, with Britain out of money and no longer able to sustain its policy, London turned Greece over to the Americans who announced the "Truman Doctrine" and poured in money to prevent a leftist victory. American money temporarily won the day, but the heavy hand of the former regime created a new generation of would-be democrats who challenged the dictatorship.

This is the theme beautifully evoked in Costa Gavras' film "Z," starring Yves Montagne. As the film shows, the liberal movement of the early 1960s was overwhelmed by a new military dictatorship, "the rule of the colonels."

When the military junta was overthrown in 1974, Greece enjoyed a brief period of "normality," but none of the deep fissures in the society had been healed. Regardless of what political party chose the ministers, the self-perpetuating bureaucracy was still in control. Corruption was rife. And, most important of all, Greece had become a political system that Aristotle would have called an oligarchy.

The very rich used their money to create for themselves a virtual state within the state. They extended their power into every niche of the economy and so arranged the banking system that it became essentially extra-territorialized. Piraeus harbor was filled with mega-yachts owned by people who paid no taxes and London was partly owned by people who fattened off the Greek economy. The "smart money" of Greece was stashed abroad.

The Current Crisis

This state of affairs might have lasted many more years, but when Greece joined the European Union in 1981, European (mainly German) bankers saw an opportunity: they flocked into Greece to offer loans. Even those Greeks who had insufficient income to justify loans grabbed them. Then, the lenders began to demand repayment. Shocked, businesses began to cut back. Unemployment increased. Opportunities vanished.

There is really no chance that the loans will be repaid. They should never have been offered and never should have been accepted. To stay afloat, the government has cut back on public services (except for the military) and the people have suffered. In the 2004 elections, the Greeks had not yet suffered enough to vote for the radical coalition led by the "Unity" (SYRIZA) party. Only 3.3 percent of the voters did.

Then, after the 2008 financial crash came years of worsening hardship, disapproval of all politicians and anger. It was popular anger, feeling misled by the bankers and by their own foolishness. There was also hopelessness as Greeks realized that they had no way out and began to turn to SYRIZA. After a series of failed attempts to secure a mandate, SYRIZA won the 2015 election with 36.3 percent of the vote and 249 out of 300 members of Parliament.

Today, the conditions that impelled that vote are even more urgent: the national income of Greece is down about 25 percent and unemployment among younger workers is over 50 percent. So where does that leave the negotiators?

Faced with German and EU demands for more austerity, the Greeks are angry. They have deep memories of hatred against the Germans (this time, not soldiers but bankers). They have been, time after time, traduced by their own politicians. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras must know that if he is charged with a "sell-out," his career is finished.

And the bail-out package offered by the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank is heavily weighted against Greece. Greeks also see their option of exiting the Euro as similar to stances taken by Britain and Sweden in not joining in the first place – although a painful adjustment for the Greek economy would be expected if Greece undertakes an unprecedented departure from the European currency.

However, unless the IMF and ECB offer a real chance for a better life for Greeks by forgiving most of the debts, I believe that the Greeks might well vote on Sunday to reject the austerity demands and leave the Euro.


William R. Polk is a professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard. President John F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department's Policy Planning Council.

anne said...

http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/congress-weighs-in-on-holding-imf-accountable-for-damage-caused-by-failed-policies-in-greece

July 2, 2015

Congress Weighs in on Holding IMF Accountable for Damage Caused by Failed Policies in Greece
By Mark Weisbrot

The battle over the future of Greece will not end on Sunday, no matter how the vote goes or -- if the Greek people vote "no" -- how the European authorities respond to their choice. This is a fight over the future of Europe, and the people who are currently strangling the Greek economy in a transparent attempt to intimidate the Greek electorate understand this very well. That is why they are being especially aggressive and ruthless at this moment: trying to convince Greeks that a "no" vote means leaving the euro, claiming that such a decision would have calamitous consequences, and giving them a taste of the financial crisis and economic disruption that they will suffer through if they refuse to do as they are told.

Last Sunday, the European Central Bank (ECB) made a deliberate decision to limit Emergency Liquidity Assistance to the Greek banking system. The limit was set low enough to force -- for the first time in the six years of depression that the ECB has deepened and prolonged -- the closure of Greek banks.

It is not surprising that the very idea of a referendum would provoke the ire of the eurozone authorities. Unlike the European Union, which has a different history, the eurozone project has become a fundamentally anti-democratic project. It has to be; the people currently running it want to reverse, as much as possible, decades of social progress on issues that are vital to Europeans. But you don't have to take my word for it: there is a paper trail of thousands of pages that spell out their political agenda. The International Monetary Fund conducts regular consultations with member governments under Article IV of its charter, and these result in papers which contain policy recommendations. There were 67 such consultations for EU countries during the four years of 2008 to 2011, and the pattern was striking: budget tightening was recommended in all 27 countries, with spending cuts generally favored over tax increases. Cutting health care and pension spending, reducing eligibility for disability and unemployment compensation, raising retirement ages and increasing labor supply were also overwhelmingly common recommendations.

The European authorities took advantage of the crisis and post-crisis years to impose parts of this agenda on the weaker eurozone economies: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and most brutally of all, Greece. More than 20 governments fell as a result, until finally, in Greece on January 25, a government was elected that said no. The goal of the European authorities, therefore, is to topple this government. This has been apparent since the ECB cut off itsmain line of credit to Greece on February 4.

Now comes a group of U.S. members of Congress warning the IMF that it could -- perhaps for the first time in decades -- be held accountable for the economic destruction that it's helping to implement. The letter objects to the IMF "taking a hard line with respect to demands that Greece implement further reforms" and notes:

Greece has already reduced its national public sector work force by 19 percent and carried out many of the reforms demanded by the IMF and its creditors. It has gone through an enormous fiscal adjustment, achieving the largest cyclically adjusted primary budget surplus in the euro area last year; and a very large current account adjustment (with a 36 percent reduction in imports). At the same time, as even the IMF has acknowledged in its own research, the austerity imposed by Greece's creditors over the past five years turned out to be far more devastating to the economy than they had predicted.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who joined House members in signing the letter, issued his own blistering statement yesterday. "At a time of grotesque wealth inequality, the pensions of the people in Greece should not be cut even further to pay back some of the largest banks and wealthiest financiers in the world," said Sanders. Among the House signers were the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Representatives Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, and the Dean of the House and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers.

Unlike many letters from Congress that are ignored by the executive branch, this one might be taken more seriously by the IMF and the U.S. Treasury department -- which is the IMF's most powerful overseer. One reason is that the IMF has been trying for five years to enact reforms in its governance structure that are very important to the Fund and Treasury -- reforms that can't be enacted unless they are approved by Congress. These reforms would make some small changes in voting representation. They wouldn't shift the balance of power at the Fund, with the U.S. and its allies still likely to maintain a comfortable majority. But the U.S. government and the Fund have lost a lot of credibility in recent years by unilaterally holding up even these largely symbolic changes. They see this hold-up as encouraging developing countries to opt for creating new institutions such as the BRICS Development Bank and Currency Reserve Arrangement. More recently, the Obama administration suffered an embarrassing setback after the U.K., Germany and France ignored their pleas and became founding members of China's new $100 billion initiative to create an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

From the congressional letter:

"As members of the U.S. Congress, we must also note the unprecedented difficulty that the IMF's proposed quota and governance reform has faced in the U.S. Congress since 2010. As you know, this also has global implications, as some governments in developing countries have begun to lose confidence in this effort to make the IMF's voting structure more representative of its member countries in the twenty-first century and are seeking institutional alternatives. It will be difficult to get a majority of the U.S. Congress on board for these important reforms if the IMF is seen as responsible for further damage to the Greek economy, as well as the currently unforeseeable consequences of any financial collapse."

The IMF will need all the votes it can get for this legislation to pass through Congress. It can choose to ignore this warning at its own institutional risk.

[Jul 03, 2015] Throughout history, debt and war have been constant partners

"...So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons. And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans they took out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the first place. "
"...Debt and war are constant partners."
"...And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis). It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars, created the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England."
Jul 03, 2015 | The Guardian

omewhere in a Greek jail, the former defence minister, Akis Tsochatzopoulos, watches the financial crisis unfold. I wonder how partly responsible he feels? In 2013, Akis (as he is popularly known) went down for 20 years, finally succumbing to the waves of financial scandal to which his name had long been associated. For alongside the lavish spending, the houses and the dodgy tax returns, there was bribery, and it was the €8m appreciation he received from the German arms dealer, Ferrostaal, for the Greek government's purchase of Type 214 submarines, that sent him to prison.

There is this idea that the Greeks got themselves into this current mess because they paid themselves too much for doing too little. Well, maybe. But it's not the complete picture. For the Greeks also got themselves into debt for the oldest reason in the book – one might even argue, for the very reason that public debt itself was first invented – to raise and support an army. The state's need for quick money to raise an army is how industrial-scale money lending comes into business (in the face of the church's historic opposition to usury). Indeed, in the west, one might even stretch to say that large-scale public debt began as a way to finance military intervention in the Middle East – ie the crusades. And just as rescuing Jerusalem from the Turks was the justification for massive military spending in the middle ages, so the fear of Turkey has been the reason given for recent Greek spending. Along with German subs, the Greeks have bought French frigates, US F16s and German Leopard 2 tanks. In the 1980s, for example, the Greeks spent an average of 6.2% of their GDP on defence compared with a European average of 2.9%. In the years following their EU entry, the Greeks were the world's fourth-highest spenders on conventional weaponry.

So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons. And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans they took out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the first place. Is this an unfair characterisation? A bit. It wasn't just Germany. And there were many other factors at play in the escalation of Greek debt. But the postwar difference between the Germans and the Greeks is not the tired stereotype that the former are hardworking and the latter are lazy, but rather that, among other things, the Germans have, for obvious reasons, been restricted in their military spending. And they have benefited massively from that.

Debt and war are constant partners. "The global financial crisis was due, at least in part, to the war," wrote Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, calculating the cost of the US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, pre-financial crash, to have been $3tn. Indeed, it was only this year, back in March, that the UK taxpayer finally paid off the money we borrowed to fight the first world war. "This is a moment for Britain to be proud of," said George Osborne, as he paid the final instalment of £1.9bn. Really?

The phrase "military-industrial complex" is one of those cliches of 70s leftwing radicalism, but it was Dwight D Eisenhower, a five-star general no less, who warned against its creeping power in his final speech as president. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government … we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society." Ike was right.

This week, Church House, C of E HQ, hosted a conference sponsored by the arms dealers Lockheed Martin and MBDA Missile Systems. We preach about turning swords into ploughs yet help normalise an industry that turns them back again. The archbishop of Canterbury has been pretty solid on Wonga and trying to put legal loan sharks out of business. Now the church needs to take this up a level. For the debts that cripple entire countries come mostly from spending on war, not on pensions. And we don't say this nearly enough.
@giles_fraser

marsCubed, 3 Jul 2015 12:21

Syriza's position has been stated in this Huffington Post article.

Speaking to reporters in Washington on Tuesday, Yiannis Bournous, the head of international affairs for Greece's ruling Syriza party, heartily endorsed defense cuts as a way to meet the fiscal targets of Greece's international creditors.

"We already proposed a 200 million euro cut in the defense budget," Bournous said at an event hosted by the Center for Economic Policy and Research and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, referring to cuts in Syriza's most recent proposal to its creditors. "We are willing to make it even bigger -- it is a pleasure for us."

Europe Offered Greece A Deal To Meet Its Obligations By Cutting Military Spending. The IMF Said No Way.

If the report is correct, ideology is playing just as much of a role as arithmetic in preventing a resolution. The IMF's refusal to consider a plan that would lessen pension cuts is consistent with itshistorically neoliberal political philosophy.


Giftedbutlazee 3 Jul 2015 11:52

we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.

Still as relevant now, 54 years after Eisenhower said it.


BritCol 3 Jul 2015 11:39

And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis). It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars, created the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England.

The moral? War makes money for profiteers, and puts those of us not killed or displaced in debt for generations. Yet we morons keep waving flags every time a prime minister wants to send us into another conflict.


barry1947brewster 3 Jul 2015 11:39

28 May 2014 The Royal United Services Institute estimated that since the Berlin Wall fell the UK has spent £35 billion on wars. Now it is suggested that we bomb IS in Syria. Instead of printing "Paid for by the Taxpayer" on medicines provided by the NHS we should have a daily costing of our expenditure on bombs etc used in anger.


real tic 3 Jul 2015 11:23

Finally someone at Graun looks at this obvious contradiction present in the Greek governments opposition to cut in defense spending (when they apparently accept cuts to pensions, healthcare and other social services)! Well done Giles, but what's wrong with your colleagues in CIF, or even in the glass bubbled editorial offices? Why has it taken so long to examine this aspect of Greek debt?

Defense expenditure is also one reason some actors in creditor nations are content to keep Greece in debt, even as far as to see its debts deepen, as long as it keeps on buying. while within Greece, nationalism within the military has long been a way of containing far right tendencies.

It is notable but unsurprising that the current Minister of Defense in Greece is a far right politician, allied to Tsipiras in the Syriza coalition.


Pollik 3 Jul 2015 11:03

"Throughout history, debt and war have been constant partners"

...and someone always makes a profit.

[Jul 01, 2015] Today is July 1 and Ukraine did not pay her gas bill on time

"...So now, acting according to what it believes are "European values", the Ukraine will buy gas from suppliers that have previously bought it … from Russia, which purchase is illegal, in that it acts in breach of contract with Gazprom. But such a petty matter is of no consequence to those who swear obeisance to "European values". "
vzgliad.ru
Moscow Exile, July 1, 2015 at 3:41 am
As from today, July 1, 2015, the Ukraine refuses to buy gas from Russia:

Not that the Ukraine has ever bought gas from Russia, namely paid in full for that which has been delivered to that country by the aggressor state: the Ukraine, however, has stolen plenty.

So now, acting according to what it believes are "European values", the Ukraine will buy gas from suppliers that have previously bought it … from Russia, which purchase is illegal, in that it acts in breach of contract with Gazprom. But such a petty matter is of no consequence to those who swear obeisance to "European values".

yalensis, July 1, 2015 at 3:48 am
Today is July 1 and Ukraine did not pay her gas bill on time.

(She is supposed to pre-pay for the month of July.)

Therefore, according to Gazprom Chief Alexei Miller, Ukraine has been cut off from the gas utility.

Ukrainian government responded with open blackmail:

They say if they don't get the gas, then they will cut off all electricity to Crimea!

In response, Crimean authorities convened emergency meeting. They will provide diesel generators to the most important objects on the peninsula. They will also set up mobile gas-turbine stations to supply the inhabitants with electricity.

Article goes on to quote an analyst named Mikhail Remizov. Remizov points out, that Ukraine possesses 2 major points with which it can blackmail Russia:
(1) Being a gas-transit station to Europe; and
(2) Controlling electricity supply to Crimea.

The second point is their best weapon, and it will be quite some time before Crimea can be electrically independent of mainland Ukraine. So, maybe Khrushchev wasn't such a fool, after all??

[Jun 29, 2015] Russian sanctions blockback

www.unz.com
Fern , June 29, 2015 at 3:21 am
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. What's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes, schadenfreude:-

"In 2015, the German economy is estimated to lose up to 290,000 jobs and receive $10 billion less than it could due to restrictive measure imposed on Moscow, the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations told Contra Magazine. German exports to Russia last year fell by $7.2 billion.
"The current developments exceed our worst fears," committee chairman Eckhard Cordes said.
This nasty short-term implication of an unreasonable Western policy towards Russia is affecting many European countries, not only the largest economy in the EU. In total, the European Union could potentially lose as much as $110 billion and up to 2 million jobs from the anti-Russian sanctions, according to the committee's estimates.

But the long-term consequences are far more profound and damaging. German businesses now fear that their reliable and long-time Russian partners have pivoted to Asia, specifically China.

German businesses are concerned that this shift could be permanent. By the time restrictive measures are lifted, former ties and partnerships could be long gone."

http://sputniknews.com/business/20150629/1023973728.html

"Former ties and partnerships could be gone". You bet. What's it gonna take before Europe's so called leaders wake up to the fact that US sanctions aren't just about trying to destroy Russia's economy, but also about doing serious, possibly terminal damage to the European one?

[Jun 28, 2015] US Department of Imperial Expansion

Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
by Tony Cartalucci

Believe it or not, the US State Department's mission statement actually says the following:

"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system."

A far and treasonous cry from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."

That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states" within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.

Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive, when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from a 1997 policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.

....


The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a statement.

Recently she issued a dangerously irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran. While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."

It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
"color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
State herself phones in during the youth movement confabs
her department sponsors on a yearly basis.

If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.

CANVAS: Freedom House, IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
and has trained protesters from 50 other countries.


As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch" runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly a secretive operation, its website, Movements.org proudly lists the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded CANVAS of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the Ukraine and Georgia, to Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned April 6 Movement. There is also the Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.

2008 New York City Summit (included Egypt's April 6 Youth Movement)
2009 Mexico City Summit
2010 London Summit

As previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."

Before & After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are covered here.

Funding all of this is the tax payers' money funneled through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House. George Soros' Open Society foundation also promotes various NGOs which in turn support the revolutionary rabble on the ground. In Egypt, after the State Department's youth brigades played their role, Soros and NED funded NGOs began work on drafting Egypt's new constitution.

It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall agenda of this color revolution army.

Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the Iran Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color revolution in Egypt through to the end, money was appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.

Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations, the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). They include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra, and Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough, the current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the US government.

Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
rational sense or interpretation.


Judging from Radio Free Europe's latest headlines, such as "Lieberman: The West's Policy Toward Belarus Has 'Failed Miserably' " and "Azerbaijani Youth Activist 'Jailed For One Month,'" it appears that hope is still pinned on inciting color revolutions in Belarus and Azerbaijan to continue on with NATO's creep and the encirclement of Russia. Belarus in particular was recently one of the subjects covered at the Globsec 2011 conference, where it was considered a threat to both the EU and NATO, having turned down NATO in favor of closer ties with Moscow.

Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House, NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush in 2002.

Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.

The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an attempt to match globalist minion Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.

Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan opposition, and describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active. Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree," -something that Washington itself has set the standard for- AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.

Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."

The "Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.


Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always, boycotting and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.

Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.

[Jun 28, 2015] Fuck the US Imperialism -- Top German Politician Blasts Nuland Carter

Jun 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

With intra-Europe relations hitting a new all-time low; and, having already been busted spying on Merkel, Obama got caught with his hand in Hollande's cookie jar this week, the following exultation from one of Germany's top politicians will hardly help Washington-Brussells relations. As Russia Insider notes, Oskar Lafontaine is a major force in German politics so it caught people's attention when he excoriated Ash Carter and Victoria Nuland on his Facebook page yesterday... "Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"

Here is the Facebook post (in German):

Lafontaine has been an outsized figure in German politics since the mid-70s. He was chairman of the SPD (one of Germany's two main parties) for four years, the SPD's candidate for chancellor in 1990, minister of finance for two years, and then chairman of the Left party in the 2000s. He is married to Sarah Wagenknecht, political heavyweight, who is currently co-chairman of Left party.

Lafontaine's outburst came a day after his wife, Sarah Wagenknecht, blasted Merkel's Russia policy in an interview on RT.

Here is the full translation of the post:

"The US 'Defense' secretary, i.e., war minister is in Berlin. He called on Europe to counter Russian 'aggression'. But in fact, it is US aggression which Europeans should be opposing.

"The Grandmaster of US diplomacy, George Kennan described the eastward expansion of NATO as the biggest US foreign policy mistake since WW2, because it will lead to a new cold war.

"The US diplomat Victoria Nuland said we have spent $5 billion to destabilize the Ukraine. They stoke the flames ever higher, and Europe pays for it with lower trade and lost jobs.

"Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism.

"F*ck US imperialism!"

* * *

When he comes out swinging this way, you know something is changing.

* * *

America - making friends and influencing people for 238 years...

remain calm

I see the CIA creating a little muslim terrorism in Europe to teach them the meaning of respect.

BlowsAgainstthe...

"But in fact, it is US aggression which Europeans should be opposing."

So good, it should be required reading . . .

"Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault

The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukrain...

Latina Lover

To date, the USSA adventurism in the Ukraine has hurt Germany financially and politically, with more losses to follow.

Instead of integrating more closely with Russia, and becoming a key part of the New Silk Road, Germany is blocked by the USSA, against her better interests. The USSA is creating a new berlin style wall of lies and propaganda between Russia and Germany claiming that Russia plans to invade the baltics, poland, moldova, blah, blah, blah.

Fortunately, most Germans are not anti intellectuals, and see through the lies, unlike the average american shlub (30% of whom cannot name the current VP but know all of the names of the Kardashians). Eventually, Merkel will get the boot, and be replaced by a more businesslike leader.

Not Too Important

30% is pretty generous, don't you think? More like 3%.

Even an aborigine in the middle of Africa with a cell phone knows more about the world than 97% of Americans.

Tall Tom

Fuck American Imperialism?

Actually it is GERMAN Imperialism over the nation states of Europe, using the European Union as a subterfuge, is that which needs be quashed.

Fuck GERMAN Imperialism and the European Union as it serves as a tool for the advancement of Germany's Imperialistic ambitions..

saveandsound

Oscar Lafontaine is member of the party "The Left". He used to be member of the "Social Democratic Party of Germany".

Both parties are of rather marginal significance, since Merkel's CDU rules them all. ;-)

Anyway, "the Left" has been opposing US Imperialism ever since, so there is not much new to see here.

datura

that won't help and no more false flags will help either. The latest poll showed that only 19% of Germans would fight Russians in case Russia attacked any NATO country. I repeat: if Russia attacked first. You can wonder, what would be the percentage of them willing to fight Russia just for the sake of Ukraine. Close to zero, I think. The USA overstepped all boundaries, when it began pushing EU countries into a military conflict with Russia. Continental Europeans are not Anglo-Saxons, they think differently. They will bow down to any USA pressure, except for a military conflict with Russia! Thats a big no no. Many of them still remember (especially Germans), what it was like to fight wild-spirited Russians, who never surrender no matter what. These constant talks about "Russian agression" by the USA politicians make Germans feel like a cornered animal with nothing to loose. Such animal cannot be subdued anymore, when your existence and life is so directly threatened, you bite. Or another example: try to force your slave to step on a rattlesnake. He may be forced to do many things, but this time he will turn against you. I already said it before: no war against Russia and Europe is possible, because even if the USA somehow forces us to any such war, huge amounts of people will be so angry that they will flee to the side of Russia. We are already discussing this openly. This is already happening in Ukraine. Already 10 000 Ukranian soldiers defected to the other side (to fight Kiev), plus one Ukrainian general, some members of the Ukranian intelligence service and about one and half million Ukrainians fled to Russia to avoid draft. I saw a video where three entire units of soldiers sent from Kiev to Donetsk (with tanks) changed side, threw out Ukrainian flags and put on Russian flags on their tanks under loud cheers from the brave people of Donbass. There are certain very natural limits to what you can force people to do, which bankers do not seem to understand. Yes, you can send many people to war, but they simply will not fight, unless you give them something to fight for. For example Hitler gave people something to fight for. But all bankers give us is chaos, no strong leader, no ideology strong enough....I think they hoped that Putin would invade Ukraine and that would be the reason for war (they provoked Hitler in a similar way). However, Putin is no Hitler, he is way too intelligent to play these silly games. And it is impossible to repeat exactly what was once so successful, because times change, people are different....you cant win with using old outdated strategies over and over. That is why all empires fall in the end. They get stuck in using the same tricks over and over, until they stop working. Even the old color revolutions are not as efficient now as they were in the past and the same goes for those silly false flags.

cherry picker

He is absolutely correct. US is surrounded by two oceans and the North and South neighbor have no intentions of invading the USA, so can anyone explain this war time nuclear, wmd, too many carriers and so forth military and paranoia.

Can't uncle Sam keep his huge nose out of everyone's business?

Can't America just enjoy what is theirs and leave others alone?

Who needs a CIA except for Nazi types.

Fuck Nuland is a good start.

Albertarocks

And the neighbors to the north and south are non-too-pleased with the USA either. We know WTF the USA is doing, although more and more are waking up to the fact that the USA is only being used as the war branch of the banking mafia. Because of this we hold nothing against American people.

In fact, up north we now probably feel more kinship with "the people" of the USA more than ever before. Because we are learning how all this works. It is the global banking monsters and the fascist corporations, the military industrial complex that is in bed with the fucking bankers. It is those assholes who are causing every damned war in the world... not "the USA" as such. Putin is a saint by comparison... not to mention the only sane leader of a superpower left on earth. He is admirable, even from this side of the pond.

Mexicans might present a problem, I don't know. Mexicans never bother Canadians so we just don't seem to have an opinion. Canadians are pretty calm, but fuck when we get mad there can be one hell of a bar fight. I don't know how all this works out but it isn't going in the right direction. I think 98% of Canadians would agree with Mr. Lafontaine. US Imperialism has got to come to an end. Or the world will. And by "US", I mean "banker".

BI2

If only our politicians could understand what that man is really saying. It is for our own good.

https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/warmongering-vs-econ...

Dodgy Geezer

We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"

You know what the problem is?

It's not particularly the US, though they are the biggest players at the moment. It's the result of the end of the Cold War.

Ever since WW2 the power blocs both had a big military and supporting intelligence service. When the Berlin Wall came down, the Russians collapsed theirs. The West did not. And ever since then it has been looking for a job. That's the reason we have had so much disruption. When your major arm of government is a multi-trillion dollar armed forces, every problem looks like an excuse for a war.

The Delicate Genius

It is not US imperialism

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/09/anglozionist-short-primer-for-...

It is the imperialism of the Anglo-Zionist cabal which has hijacked the American treasury and military.

Neocons, Interventionist "realists" and other assorted militarist scum.

Their control of the MSM is sound {they even acquired VICE News as that got too popular, and Orwellized it, beginning with the Zionist sent to fake stories out of Ukraine}...

but not the internet. As younger people grow up, post comments and articles, this cleft between the pre-internet and internet informed grows more and more obvious.

I'm sure I'm not the only one that expects aggressive moves against intent content.

We've seen some attacks on free speech already in the Fast Track bill - but it will take time to really see how bad the TPP itself is in practice.

But it does seem clear that .gov is hoping to make an end run around various Constitutional niceties by "treaty."

and no - treaties do not and can not over-ride the Constitution. Only amendment, not treaty, can change the constitution.

PrayingMantis

... US imperialism plus US exceptionalism is analogous to this >>> http://rt.com/usa/270268-falcon-launch-space-fail/

... and while the US forces the other NATO members to apply more sanctions to Russia, US hypocrisy rears its ugly head by 'allowing' products from sanctioned Russia that would benefit them ... check this out

>>> http://rt.com/usa/270220-us-space-russian-engine/

pupdog1

Gotta love a guy who knows how to define a problem.

Fuck Noodleberg.

HTZMR

As someone who actually lives in Germany i can tell you that Lafontaine is an absolute has-been and he plays no role in German politics, nor has he for years. His influence came to an end when Schroeder kicked him out of his government over 15 years ago. To claim he is a heavyweight is simply dead wrong.

Wagenknecht does play a certain role, but the Left is a pure protest party full of fundamentalist hardline social democrats and former East German communists. The Left has no say on federal government matters such as foreign policy. This post is pure alarmism.

Wild E Coyote

Actually US and Soviet Union both went bankrupt by Cold War.
Soviet Union accepted their fate.
USA still refuse to accept theirs.

Renfield

Upvoted, but I think technically it was Vietnam that bankrupted the US.

Then again, you could argue that it was the First World War, or the 1929 market crash -- although its bankruptcy wasn't admitted until 1933.

[Jun 22, 2015] The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard

nationalinterest.org
Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:36 am
Hasn't even registered on European economies.

Können Sie Deutsch?

Sanktionen kosten Europa bis zu 100 Milliarden Euro, Freitag, 19.06.2015, 10:09

Russlands Wirtschaftskrise hat verheerende Folgen für Europa. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt eine Studie aus Österreich. Besonders betroffen ist Deutschland. Die Krise könnte das Land mittelfristig eine halbe Million Arbeitsplätze und Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung kosten.
Die Wirtschaftskrise in Russland hat weitaus schlimmere Konsequenzen für die Länder der Europäischen Union (EU) und die Schweiz als bislang erwartet. Nach einer Berechnung des Österreichischen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (Wifo), die der europäischen Zeitungsallianz "Lena" exklusiv vorliegt, sind europaweit weit mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze und rund 100 Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung in Gefahr.

Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:44 am
The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard – Der Spiegel, July 21, 2014
Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 11:32 am
No, it's not what I maintain, it's what these people report is happening:

German businesses suffer fallout as Russia sanctions bite (Financial Times)

http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/9a620f0c-73fc-11e4-82a6-00144feabdc0.img

German Businesses Urge Halt on Sanctions Against Russia – Wall Street Journal

In most countries, it would be highly unusual for corporate executives to inject themselves into geopolitics and matters of national security with the forcefulness that a number of German business leaders have. But many of Germany's largest companies have substantial Russian operations, built in some cases over decades, and worry that tough economic sanctions would rob them of a key growth market when their home market-Europe-is stagnant.

Germany's economy hit by trade sanctions on Russia – FT

The sanctions being placed on Russia by Europe are having a negative impact on the bloc, experts have said.

European countries have implemented a series of trade embargoes as a punishment for Russia's moves to annex Crimea and for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Rowan Dartington Signature's Guy Stephens said the eurozone had been "rife" with weak economic data and one of the biggest concerns was Germany because of its relationship with Russia.

"Sanctions against key trading partner Russia, coupled with declining demand from China, have begun to take their toll on Europe's largest economy," he said.

"Business confidence is also waning and GDP growth for next year has been downgraded to just 0.8 per cent, well below the government's forecast of 1.3 per cent. All in all, the decline of Europe's powerhouse could just turn out to be the ammunition that European Central Bank president Mario Draghi needs to begin a prolonged quantitative-easing campaign."

Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said Europe's share of global profits had "collapsed".

"And complicating the immediate path of liquidity and corporate earnings in Europe is the ongoing collapse in the Russian rouble," he said.

[Jun 22, 2015] The Russian Pipeline Waltz

Jun 22, 2015 | naked capitalism
Gaylord June 20, 2015 at 3:47 am

Does anybody know what Russia's plans are to try to prevent runaway climate change? Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions? Their aggressive plans for oil drilling in the Arctic indicate the latter.

Barry Fay June 20, 2015 at 6:33 am

"Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions?" Sounds like a typical cheap shot against Russia to me. The country most oblivious to the catastrophic effects, and one of the two the biggest contributors (with China), is the good ole USA. Russian is at 6%, USA at 20%! Your propaganda driven prejudice is showing!

Macon Richardsonn June 20, 2015 at 7:35 am

Thank you Barry Fay! Well said.

Nick June 20, 2015 at 9:06 am

With Russia's utter dependence upon oil and gas, plus lack of FDI, they have no alternative but to drill baby drill. Eventual regime change may increase their long term prospects.

Gio Bruno June 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm

Careful now. This could encourage blow-back from Barry Fay.

Let me just say that Russia is not a static society (education is prized). They can, and likely will, create a more diversified/un-stratified economy going forward. As for regime change, that's an habitual fantasy of folks who read only MSM propaganda. Putin, despite the grandstanding of American representatives (98% return rate) has the support of 80% of the Russian population. Russians are not stupid (See USA for comparison.)

Steve H. June 20, 2015 at 9:21 am

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/naomi-oreskes-the-hoax-of-climate-change-denial.html#comment-2458611

Externality June 20, 2015 at 12:28 pm

1. Russian- – unlike some Western nations – has submitted a detailed carbon-reduction plan to the upcoming climate conference. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/russia-submits-its-climate-action-plan-ahead-of-2015-paris-agreement/

2. At a time when China and parts of Eastern Europe remain dependent on highly polluting coal-fired power plants, Germany is returning to coal following its phase-out of nuclear power, cash-strapped EU countries are phasing out renewable energy subsidies, and many Eastern European nuclear plants are overdue for retirement, natural gas remains a necessary – and environmentally friendly – energy alternative. The only question then is where the gas to come from. The UK's oil and gas industry is in terminal decline, large-scale imports from North America and the Middle East are a decade or more away, and efforts to promote fracking-related gas production in Europe has failed for a variety of reasons. To borrow a favorite line of the neo-liberals, "there is no alternative" (TINA) to Russian gas.

3. Since the end of the Cold War, the West has aggressively used the WTO, investor-state dispute tribunals, sanctions, propaganda campaigns, and "regime change" to punish resource-exporting nations who limit, or attempt to limit, exports for environmental reasons. To the WTO, for example, environmental laws in countries outside of Western Europe, the US, and Canada are illegal "non-tariff trade barriers." Russian attempts to protect its old growth forests against timber exporters and Chinese attempts to limit the environmentally disastrous (and often illegal) mining of rare earth ores were both struck down by the WTO at the request of the West. If Russia were to limit oil and gas exports for environmental reasons, the resulting legal, political, and military confrontation with the West would dwarf the Cuban missile crisis.

Rex June 20, 2015 at 1:33 pm

Burning any hydrocarbon produces carbon dioxide, so natural gas is not "environmentally friendly." There is clear evidence, too, that natural gas exploration and production release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed rules on that for producers (late and weak, of course). Methane in atmosphere is over 20X as damaging as CO.

Russian scientists contribute much to Climate Mayhem knowledge, especially in the rapidly changing arctic and on the threat of methane release.

Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43 Baltiiskaya Street, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov, Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach & Denis Chernykh

Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Institute of Chemistry, 159, 100-Let Vladivostok Prospect, Vladivostok 690022, Russia
Valentin Sergienko

To name a few.

One wonders if Russian climate scientists are censored and hounded as much as are U.S. and U.K. researchers, especially in the US government (USGS, NOAA, NASA, etc.). Persecution and censorship of US scientists is above McCarthey-esque proportions today.

Ian June 20, 2015 at 8:37 pm

What about thorium reactors. I am aware that at least China is investing in the technology.

Lune June 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm

Just like the War on Drugs is most successful when it focuses on reducing demand (drug users) rather than fighting/bombing the suppliers (Mexico, Colombia, etc), the War on greenhouse gases is best fought by reducing demand. If the Europeans find a way to no longer need so much natgas, then Russia wouldn't be selling it to them. Otherwise, someone else will sell it to them regardless.

That doesn't completely exonerate Russia, of course, and given their history with the Aral Sea, I'm not sure that they would put environmental concerns very high on their list of priorities (certainly not higher than their economic security). But right now, the problem with greenhouse gases is on the other end of all these pipelines.

Otter June 20, 2015 at 8:15 am

The abandonment of South Stream was not much of a surprise to anybody with even a passing interest in the energy politics.

Brussels and Washington were both adamant that it would never pass through Bulgaria.
I suppose some people were surprised at how quickly negotiations progressed with Turkey. Possibly there is some quid pro quo regarding Iranian and Kurdish hydrocarbons.

Serbia and Hungary are anxious for access. The Austrians are even talking money. Greece of course needs gas and transit fees. Italia, Slovakia, Czech would welcome shares. The only problem is some people have suddenly taken an interest in organizing a colour revolution in Makedonia.

Jackrabbit June 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm

I questioned the author's perspective as soon as I saw this (in the second sentence) :

Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the energy world by dismissing the long-prepared South Stream project in favour of Turkish Stream.

Russia re-routed South Stream to Turkey (now called "TurkStream") because Bulgaria rejected South Stream under pressure from US/EU. OIFVet, a frequent commentator at NC, has written loads of good and inciteful comments with respect to this farce (he is Bulgarian).

The author refers to a "Russian Waltz" which casts aspersions on Russian intentions. Their intentions are clear. To by-pass a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia. Period. Their efforts to do so are being blocked (first by pressuring Bulgaria, now with a color revolution in Macedonia). Russia's 'waltz' partner is the EU which created the rule that pipeline ownership must be independent of supplier. This rule has dubious value when applied to large suppliers like Russia/Gazprom.

The author artfully guides us to three possibilities but ignores the most logical and intuitive one. Russia is likely to be taking this move now to hedge against the developing brinkmanship whereby Russia is blamed for causing European suffering by refusing to transit gas through Ukraine – despite the US/EU's irresponsible blocking of South Stream / Turk Stream as a delivery platform.

=

I believe that one must be very careful about sources when dealing with issues that are sensitive to the US/EU establishment.

Brugel is nominally an independent think tank but it is governed by, led by, and staffed with establishment figures and technocrats. From their annual report:

The idea to set up an independent European think tank devoted to international economics stemmed from discussions involving economists, policymakers and private practitioners from many European countries. The initiative subsequently found support from 12 EU governments and 17 leading European corporations, who committed to the project's initial funding base and participated in the election of its first Board in December 2004. Operations started in 2005 and today Bruegel counts 18 EU governments, 33 corporations and 10 institutions
among its members.

It is difficult to trust "experts" that have a vested interest in culling favor with the establishment. This article proves that such skepticism is very much warranted.

David in NYC June 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

Putin's plan, to maintain a chokehold of the distribution of gas, mimics John Rockefeller's strategy for Standard Oil to control the distribution of oil in the late 19th century.

susan the other June 20, 2015 at 1:14 pm

Syria has really taken a hit for Russia. Until the conflict there is resolved the the Saudis/Arab natgas cannot build their pipeline. And by the time it is resolved Russia will have already established its network. It looks like this leaves the Saudis and other MidEast natural gas suppliers at the mercy of China and India. The BRICS.

Raj June 20, 2015 at 7:50 pm

You already know this, but Israel wants to send the gas production from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market and Assad stands in the way for the time being. Once Assad is toppled and a new puppet regime is put in place, I think we'll see the construction of the pipeline through Syria. Qatar & Saudi Arabia will connect through the same artery to reach the Europe market…and then Russia finds itself with competition. This is the key for the West to gain greater control of the Russian economy, and eventually profit from Russia's resources. So, in the short term (~10 yrs), Russia may have its infrastructure in place (whether via Nord, Turkish or South stream), but in the long term (~20+ yrs), we'll see Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar enter the Europe market and Russia will no longer be the only game in town. We think we're seeing the squeeze put on Russia now, but it will only get worse with time. The West looks at Russia's resources and sees dollar signs.

Gerard Pierce June 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm

In the current political situation, there should be a natural alliance between Russia and Greece, but it can't be a declared alliance – that leads to retaliation that neither one wants to deal with right now.

A covert alliance with Russia could put Greece in a position to obtain finance through China. Without any overt declarations, the European countries might figure out "on their own" that continued sanctions against Russia are counter-productive.

Even in default, if Greece can maintain any kind of economy, the wily Varoufakis gets to sit back and smile while the EU ministers try to explain to southern Europe why their policies are necessary and correct.

The US gets to continue with its unprofitable wars in the mid-East while trying to avoid major embarrassment from the fascists in DonBass. The major problem for the Russians is watching as Russians in Ukraine are ethnically cleansed.

If the Russians can avoid a military response all that is needed is someone to maintain the body count. The overall death count would probably be a lot less than a military response.

Susan Pizzo June 20, 2015 at 8:49 pm

An MOU with Greece has been signed, providing significant investment funds, a route around Ukraine, and a potential clinker in the Russian sanction vote on Monday. Further complications for debt negotiations? Greece is also reportedly "drawing up a default plan, which would see the country institute capital controls and nationalize its banking industry" (ibtimes). It ain't over till it's over…

http://www.ibtimes.com/greece-russia-reach-preliminary-gas-pipeline-deal-greek-debt-woes-continue-1976077

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/greece-russia-gas-deal/index.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-18/russia-greece-ink-pipeline-deal-gazprom-boosts-ukraine-bypass

[Jun 20, 2015] Architects of American policy towards Russia and Ukraine are destroying American national security

"Architects of American policy towards Russia and Ukraine are destroying American national security": Stephen F. Cohen on the truths U.S. media and politicians hide

Myths of American nationalism busted as our interview with noted scholar concludes

Patrick L. Smith

If there is a lesson in Stephen F. Cohen's professional fortunes over the past year, it is the peril of advancing a dispassionate reading of our great country's doings abroad. Cohen's many pieces in The Nation on the Ukraine crisis and the consequent collapse of U.S.-Russia relations now leave him in something close to a state of siege. "My problem with this begins with the fact that… I don't have a vested interest in one of the 'isms,' or ideologies," Cohen says in this, the second part of a long interview conducted last month.

The problem lies with the ideologues infesting the waters wherein Cohen swims. Terminally poisoned by Cold War consciousness, they cannot abide disinterested thought. Cohen has been mostly scholar, partly journalist, since the 1970s. His "Sovieticus" column, launched in The Nation in the 1980s, put a magazine traditionally tilted toward domestic issues among the few American publications providing consistent analysis of Russian affairs. At this point, Cohen's Nation essays are the bedrock scholarly work to which those (few) writing against the orthodoxy turn.

The first half of our exchange, last week on Salon, began with events during the past year and advanced toward the post-Soviet origins of the current crisis. In part two, Cohen completes his analysis of Vladimir Putin's inheritance and explains how he came to focus his thinking on "lost alternatives"-outcomes that could have been but were not. Most surprising to me was the real but foregone prospect of reforming the Soviet system such that the suffering that ensued since its demise could have been averted.

Salon: Putin inherited a shambles, then-as he would say, "a catastrophe."

Stephen F. Cohen: As Russia's leader, Putin has changed over the years, especially in foreign policy but also at home. His first impulse was toward more free-market reforms, anti-progressive taxes. He enacted a 13 percent flat tax-Steve Forbes would've been ecstatic, right? He offers [George W.] Bush what Clinton never really offered Yeltsin: a full partnership. And what does he do? On September 11, 2001, he called George and said, Whatever you want, we're with you. Bush says, Well, I think we're going to have to go to war in Afghanistan. And Putin said, I can help you. We've got major resources and assets in Afghanistan. I even have an army over there called the Northern Alliance. I'll give it to you! You want overflight? It's all yours!

How many American lives did Putin save during our land war in Afghanistan? And do you know what a political price he paid in Russia for that? Because his security people were completely against it.

They were? Please explain.

Oh, yeah. You think they minded seeing America being brought to its knees? They'd been invaded so often; let America get a taste of it! But Putin assumes he's achieved what Yeltsin couldn't and that this benefits the Russian state. He has a real strategic partnership with America. Now, remember, he's already worried about his radical Islamic problem because Russia has nearly 20 million Muslim citizens of its own. Russia sits in the East and in the West; it's on the front lines.

What does Bush give him in return? He expands NATO again and he unilaterally withdraws the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the bedrock of Russia's nuclear security- it's a complete betrayal. Is that how you repay somebody who's helped you save the lives of your citizens? This is where the word "betrayal" begins to enter into the discourse.

It's an important word for Putin.

It's not only Putin; [Dmitry] Medvedev uses it, too, when he becomes president [in 2008]. America has broken its word, it's betrayed us, it's deceived us, and we no longer take America at its word- well, they never should've in the first fucking place, just as Gorbachev should have got the promise not to expand NATO in writing. We'd have done it anyway, but at least they would have had a talking point.

This trust, this naive trust on the part of Russians, that there's something about American presidents that makes them honorable-it suggests they need a crash course in something. This was betrayal for Putin, and for the entire Russian political class, and Putin paid a price.

I've heard him called, among right-wing Russian intellectuals, an appeaser of the West. Soft. You can hear this today: Mariupol? Odessa? Should've taken them a year ago; they belong to us. What's he thinking? Why is he discussing it? [Mariupol and Odessa are two contested cities in the southeastern region of Ukraine.]

So Putin sets his course, and then comes this famous speech he gives in 2007 in Munich, with McCain sitting in the front row. Putin says just what I told you. He says, Look, we want to be your partner; this is what we've wanted to be since Gorbachev. We believe in the common European home. But every time we turn to you or we negotiate with you or we think we have an agreement with you, you act like a hegemon and everybody has to do exactly what you say if they want to to be on your side.

Putin has come to tell them that America is risking a new Cold War with more than a decade of bad behavior towards post-Soviet Russia. John McCain interprets this as the declaration of a new Cold War.

But the demonization of Putin came earlier, before the Munich speech, when he began to drive a few favorite American oligarchs [oil companies] out of the country. I looked it up: No major oil-producing country permits majority foreign ownership of its oil. So there's a long a long history of how Putin goes from a democrat for sure in the U.S. media and an aspiring partner of America to becoming the Hitler of today, as Hillary Clinton put it. You can see what a disease it's become, this Putin-phobia….

RT just aired a documentary in which Putin explains exactly when and why he decided to move as he did in Crimea. It's striking: The deliberations began the night President Yanukovych was ousted in the American-supported coup last year. Can you talk about Putin's thinking on the Crimea question, leading to the annexation?

Putin, in my judgment, did some wrong-headed things. We now know much more about Crimea, but even given what he has said, there was an argument. It wasn't quite as clear-cut as he says it was. There was a debate with two sides.

One side said, "Take Crimea now or fight NATO there later." The other said, "Let the referendum [on association with Russia, held in March 2014] go forward and they're going to vote 80-plus percent to join Russia. We don't have to act on it; they've just made a request and we'll say what we think about it. Meanwhile, we see what happens in Kiev." The Kremlin had done polling in Crimea. And it's the best bargaining chip Putin will have. He'll have Crimea wanting to join Russia and he can say to Washington, Well, you would like the Crimea to remain in Ukraine? Here's what I'd like in return: an eternal ban on NATO membership and federalization of the Ukrainian constitution, because I have to give my Crimean brethren something.

But those arguing that Crimea was the biggest bargaining chip Putin was ever going to have lost. The other side prevailed.

Now, Putin took all the credit, but that's not what really happened. They were all dependent on intelligence coming out of Kiev and Crimea and Donbass. You see now, if you watch that film, what a turning point the overthrow of Yanukovych was. Remember, the European foreign ministers-Polish, German, and French-had brokered an agreement saying that Yanukovych would form a coalition government and stay in power until December, and that was burned in the street. I'll never forget the massive Klitschko [Vitali Klitschko, a prizefighter-turned-political oppositionist, currently Kiev's mayor] standing on a platform at Maidan, all 6' 8" of him, announcing this great triumph of negotiation, and some smaller guy whipping away the microphone and saying, Go fuck yourself. This thing is going to burn in the streets. The next day it did. That night you saw what an undefeated heavyweight champion looks like when he's terror-stricken.

This is the turning point, and "It's all due to Putin," but it's all due to Putin because demonization has become the pivot of the analysis.

What do we do from here to resolve the Ukraine question? You used the word "hope" when talking about the February cease-fire, Minsk II-"the last, best hope." It tripped me up. Hope's a virtue, but it can also be very cruel.

Anyone of any sense and good will knows that it [the solution] lies in the kind of home rule they negotiated in the U.K.-and don't call it a federated Ukraine if that upsets Kiev. As the constitution stands, the governors of all the Ukrainian provinces are appointed by Kiev. You can't have that in eastern Ukraine. Probably can't even have that in Western and Central Ukraine anymore. Ukraine is fragmenting.

I want to turn this around: what is your view of America's strategic goal? I ask in the context of your analysis, in "Failed Crusade," of "transitionology," as you term the paradigm wherein Russia was supposed to transition into a free-market paradise. As the book makes clear, it amounted to the elevation and protection of crooks who asset-stripped most of an entire nation. Now we don't hear much about Russia's "transition." What is Washington's ambition now?

I think the Ukranian crisis is the greatest blow to American national security- even greater than the Iraq war in its long-term implications- for a simple reason: The road to American national security still runs through Moscow. There is not a single major regional or issue-related national security problem we can solve without the full cooperation of whoever sits in the Kremlin, period, end of story.

Name your poison: We're talking the Middle East, we're talking Afghanistan, we're talking energy, we're talking climate, we're talking nuclear proliferation, terrorism, shooting airplanes out of the sky, we're talking about the two terrorist brothers in Boston.

Look: I mean American national security of the kind I care about-that makes my kids and grandkids and myself safe-in an era that's much more dangerous than the Cold War because there's less structure, more nonstate players, and more loose nuclear know-how and materials…. Security can only be partial, but that partial security depends on a full-scale American-Russian cooperation, period. We are losing Russia for American national security in Ukraine as we talk, and even if it were to end tomorrow Russia will never, for at least a generation, be as willing to cooperate with Washington on security matters as it was before this crisis began.

Therefore, the architects of the American policy towards Russia and Ukraine are destroying American national security-and therefore I am the patriot and they are the saboteurs of American security. That's the whole story, and any sensible person who doesn't suffer from Putin-phobia can see it plainly.

Is it too strong to say that the point is to destabilize Moscow?

What would that mean? What would it mean to destabilize the country that may have more weapons of mass destruction than does the U.S.?

Is that indeed the ambition?

I don't think there's any one ambition. I come back to the view that you've got various perspectives in discussion behind closed doors. I guess Mearsheimer [John Mearsheimer, the noted University of Chicago scholar] is right in the sense of saying that there's a faction in Washington that is behaving exactly as a great power would behave and trying to maximize its security, but it doesn't understand that that's what other great powers do, too. That's its failure. Gorbachev and Reagan, though it wasn't originally their idea, probably agreed on the single most important thing: Security had to be mutual. That was their agreement and they built everything on that. We have a military build-up you're going to perceive as a threat and build up, and I will perceive your build-up as a threat… and that's the dynamic of permanent and conventional build-up, a permanent arms race. And that's why Gorbachev and Reagan reasoned, We're on the edge of the abyss. That's why we are going to declare the Cold War over, which they did.

That concept of mutual security doesn't mean only signing contracts: It means don't undertake something you think is in your security but is going to be perceived as threatening, because it won't prove to be in your interest. Missile defense is the classic example: We never should have undertaken any missile defense program that wasn't in cooperation with Russia, but, instead, we undertook it as an anti-Russian operation. They knew it and we knew it and scientists at MIT knew it, but nobody cared because some group believed that you've got to keep Russia down.

The truth is, not everything depends on the president of the United States. Not everything, but an awful lot does, and when it comes to international affairs we haven't really had a president who acted as an actual statesman in regard to Russia since Reagan in 1985-88. Clinton certainly didn't; his Russia policy was clownish and ultimately detrimental to U.S. national security interests. Bush's was reckless and lost one opportunity after another, and Obama's is either uninformed or completely out to lunch. We have not had a statesman in the White House when it comes to Russia since Reagan, and I am utterly, totally, 1000 percent convinced that before November 2013, when we tried to impose an ultimatum on Yanukovych-and even right now, today-that a statesman in the White House could end this in 48 hours with Putin. What Putin wants in the Ukraine crisis is what we ought to want; that's the reality.

Interesting.

What does Putin want? He's said the same thing and he's never varied: He wants a stable, territorial Ukraine-Crimea excepted-and he knows that's possible only if Ukraine is free to trade with the West and with Russia but is never a member of NATO. However, somebody's got to rebuild Ukraine, and he's not going to take that burden on himself, but he will help finance it through discounted energy prices. It could all be done tomorrow if we had a statesman in the White House. Tomorrow! Nobody else has to die.

I think Chancellor Merkel understands this, too.

I think she's come to, but how strong she is and whether Washington will cut her legs out from under her as they're trying to do now… [Shortly before this interview Senator McCain delivered a blunt attack on Merkel at a security conference in Munich for opposing the supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine. The Arizona Republican was similarly critical when Merkel began to explore a diplomatic solution in Ukraine in spring 2013.]

They have very little respect for her, which is wrong.

What Lindsay Graham and McCain did in Germany, in her own country, on German national television, to her face-and the fact that she's a woman didn't help, either. The way they spoke to her, I can't think of a precedent for that.

Parts of your work are very moving, and that's not a word a lot of scholarship prompts. The enormous value the Soviet Union accreted-most Americans know nothing of this; with the media's encouragement, we're completely ignorant of this. There's nothing encouraging us to understand that the hundreds of billions of misappropriated assets during the 1990s was essentially the misappropriation of Soviet wealth.

A lot of it came here, to the United States.

Can you talk about this?

I can tell you about a guy who was formerly very high up in the CIA. I called him about a something I was writing on Russian wealth smuggled through the banks into the United States, and he said, We have informed the FBI exactly where all this wealth is in the United States but we are under strict political orders to do nothing about it. Now, the interesting thing is, why now? Well, it would have badly damaged the Yeltsin regime, which the Clinton administration had unconditionally embraced, but also because that money became part of the flourishing stock and real estate markets here at that time.

Even today in Russia, when you ask people if they wish the Soviet Union hadn't ended, you're still getting over 60 percent, among young people, too, because they hear the stories from their parents and grandparents. It requires a separate study, but it's not rocket science. If young kids see their grandparents dying prematurely because they're not being paid their pensions, they're going to resent it. When the bottom fell out of the Soviet welfare state and out of the professions, what happened in the 1990s was that the Soviet middle class- which was one of the most professional and educated, and had some savings and which therefore should have been the building block of a Russian free market sector- that middle class was wiped out, and it's never been recreated. Instead, you got a country of impoverished people and of very, very rich people-with a small middle class serving the rich. That changed under Putin; Putin has rebuilt the middle class, gradually.

The Russian middle class isn't the same as ours. A lot of Russia's middle class are people who are on the federal budget: Army officers, doctors, scientists, teachers-these are all federal budget people. They're middle class, but they don't become middle class as autonomous property owners. A lot of my friends are members of this class, and a lot of them are very pro-Putin, but a lot of my friends are very anti-Putin, too. The thing about the Soviet Union can be summarized very simply: The Soviet Union lasted 70-plus years, so that would be less than the average life of an American male today. A person cannot jump out of his or her autobiography any more than they can jump out of their skin; it's your life. You were born in the Soviet Union, you had your first sexual experience in the Soviet Union, you were educated, you got a career, you got married, you raised your kids: That was your life. Of course you miss it, certainly parts of it.

There were ethnic nationalities in the Soviet Union who hated it and wanted to break away, and this became a factor in 1991, but for a great many people- certainly the majority of Russians and a great many Ukrainians and Belorussians and the central Asians- it's not surprising that 25 years later, those adults still remember the Soviet Union with affection. This is normal, and I don't find anything bad in it. You know, Putin wasn't actually the first to say this but he did say it and it's brilliant and tells you who Putin is and who most Russians are. He said this: Anyone who doesn't regret the end of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who thinks you can recreate the Soviet Union has no head. That's it, that's exactly right!

Didn't Putin say that the end of the Soviet Union was the 20th century's greatest catastrophe?

It all has to do with the word "the." There's no "the" in Russian. Did Putin say, in translation, that the end of the Soviet Union was "the" greatest catastrophe of the 20th century? If so, there's something wrong with that, because for Jews it was the Holocaust. Or did he say, "one of" the greatest catastrophes?

I would have guessed the latter.

All four professional translators I sent Putin's phrase to said you have to translate it as "one of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century." Now, we can have a discussion. He's taken a moderate position, but what are the others? Fair enough, but catastrophe for whom? Americans don't think it was a catastrophe. Putin would say, "Look, 20 million Russians found themselves outside the country when the Soviet Union broke up, that was a tragedy for them, a catastrophe. Seventy or 80 percent plunged into poverty in the 1990s, lost everything. Can I put that on the list of "one of the greatest?" I would say sure, because for everybody there's a greater catastrophe. For the Jews there's no catastrophe greater than the Holocaust. For the Armenians, their genocide. Again, people can't jump out of their history. A tolerant, democratic person acknowledges that. Each people and nation has its own history. I'd like to write an article about this, but I'm not going to live long enough to write all the articles or books I want to write. We say, for example, the Russians have not come to grips with and fully acknowledged the horrors of Stalinism and its victims. I would argue in this article that they have done more to acknowledge the horrors of Stalinism than we have of slavery.

Interesting.

For example, do we have a national museum of the history of slavery in the United States? They're building a large one in Moscow to commemorate Stalin's victims. He recently signed a decree mandating a monument in central Moscow to those victims.

In the way of being moved by some of the things you write, I've wanted to ask you about this for years. It has to do with the sentiments of Russians and what they wanted, their ambitions for themselves, some form of… as I read along in these passages I kept saying, "I wonder if he's going to use the phrase 'social democracy.'" And, sure enough, you did. These passages got me to take Rudolph Bahro [author of "The Alternative in Eastern Europe"] off the shelf. The obvious next step after East-West tension subsided was some form of social democracy. I don't know where you want to put it. I put it between Norway and Germany somewhere. To me what happened instead is a horrific tragedy, not only for Russia but for Eastern Europe.

My problem with this begins with the fact that I'm not a communist, I'm not a socialist, a social democrat. I'd like to have enough money to be a real capitalist, but it's a struggle. [Laughs.] I don't have a vested interest in one of the "isms" or the ideologies, but I agree with you. I don't know about Eastern Europe, let's leave it aside, but look at Russia. You'd have thought that the logical outcome of the dismantling of the Stalinist Communist system, because the system was built primarily by Stalin from the 1930s on, would have been Russian social democracy and that, of course, was what Gorbachev's mission was. Lots of books have been written, most persuasively by Archie Brown, the great British scholar, who knows Gorbachev personally, probably as well as I do, that Gorbachev came to think of himself as a European social democrat while he was still in power. That's what his goal was. He had this close relationship with the Social Democratic prime minister of Spain, I forget his name.

Zapatero?

I don't remember, but I remember that they did a lot of social democratic socializing and talking.

Felipe Gonzalez, I think it was.

Gonzalez, that's right. Gorbachev was a very well-informed man and his advisors during his years in power were mostly social democrats and had been for years. Their mission had been to transform the Soviet Union. Now, remember, Lenin began as a social democrat, and the original model for Lenin had been not only Marx but the German Social Democratic Party. The Bolshevik or Communist Party was originally the Russian Social Democratic Party, which split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. So in a way, and I once said this to Gorbachev, historically you want to go back to Lenin before he became a Bolshevik. He said, "Well that's kind of complicated." Then Gorbachev said, "Everybody agrees Russia is a left-of-center country."

The Russian people are left of center. They're a welfare-state country. Gorbachev had this interesting conversation with Putin, when he went to tell Putin that he, Gorbachev, was going to start a social democratic party. There had been several start-ups and they never went anywhere. And Putin said that's the right thing to do, because Russia really is a left-of-center country. So Putin said the same thing. And so Russia is, if you look at the history of Russia…

Are you talking about Russia very early, thinking about Russian givenness to community and all that?

However you put it all together, the peasant tradition, the urban tradition, the socialist tradition. Almost all the revolutionary parties were socialist. You didn't have a Tea Party among them. This is a Russian tradition. Now, it's obviously changed, but I would say that today, looking at the polls, most Russians overwhelmingly believe that the state has obligations that include medical care, free education, and guaranteeing everybody a job. In fact, it's in the Russian constitution, the guarantee of a job. Most Russians feel there should not be a "free market" but a social or regulated market, that some things should be subsidized, that the government should regulate certain things, and that nobody should be too rich or too poor. For that you get 80 percent of the vote every time. So that's a social democratic program, right? Why don't they have it?

I ask everybody in Russia who wants a social democratic party. They exist, but not a party that can win elections? What's the problem here? I think know, but I want to hear Russians tell me what's right. People cite what you and I would guess. First of all, there's the hangover from communism, which was social democratic and somewhat socialist, in some form.

Second, and this is probably the key thing, social democratic movements tended to grow out of labor movements-labor unions, historically, in England and Scandinavia and Germany. They became the political movement of the labor movement, the working class movement. So you normally get a labor movement that favors political action instead of strikes, creates a political party, you have a parliamentary system, they begin to build support in the working class, elements of the middle class join them, and you end up eventually with European social democracy.

Old Labour in Britain is a perfect example.

Well, the labor unions in Russia are a complete mess. I shouldn't say that, but they're complicated. The major one remains the old Soviet official one, which is in bed deeply with state employers. The independent one, or ones, haven't been able to get enough traction. In almost every European country there were circumstances, you might say the political culture was favorable. Those objective circumstances don't exist [in Russia]. First, you have an insecure savaged middle class that's seen its savings confiscated or devalued repeatedly in the last 25 years. You've got a working class trapped between oligarchs, state interests and old industries, and private entrepreneurs who are very vulnerable. In other words, the working class itself is in transition. Its own insecurities don't lead it to think in terms of political organizations but in terms of issues-of whether Ford Motor Company is going to fire them all tomorrow. They're localized issues.

Then you don't have a leadership. Leadership really matters. No one has emerged, either in the Russian parliament or in Russian political life. By the 1990s Gorbachev was past his prime and too hated for what had happened to the country. He hoped to be, when he ran for president that time [in 1996] and got 1 percent, he hoped to be the social democratic leader. There are a couple guys in Parliament who aspire to be the leader of Russian social democracy…. When I'm asked, and I've told this to young social democrats and to Gennady Zyuganov, whom I've known for 20 years, the leader of the Russian Communist Party, the only real electoral party, that Russia needs social democracy with a Russian face….

What this means is that the most important force in Russia, and people were wrong to say Putin created it, is nationalism. This began, in fact, under Stalin. It was embedded during the Brezhnev years, and it was overshadowed during perestroika in the late-1980s. Then there was an inevitable upsurge as a result of the 1990s. You cannot be a viable political candidate in Russia today unless you come to grips with nationalism.

Therefore, the best way, in my judgment, if you also want democracy, is social democracy with a Russian nationalist face. What's interesting is the guy who was until recently the most popular opposition leader, Navalny [Alexei Navalny, the noted anti-corruption activist], who got nearly 30 per cent of the vote in the Moscow mayoral elections and then blew it by becoming again a foe of the entire system instead of building on his electoral success-he's too nationalistic for the taste of a lot of democrats.

Truly? You wouldn't know it from what you read.

He's got a bad history in regards to the Caucasus people, among others. But what's interesting in this regard is, we don't ever speak of American nationalism. We call it patriotism. It's weird, isn't it? We don't have a state, we have a government….

Every American politician who seeks the presidency in effect tries to make American nationalism the program of his or her candidacy, but they call it patriotism. They're fully aware of the need to do this, right? So why they think Putin doesn't have to do it, too, is completely beyond me. There's no self-awareness.

In Russia, people had lost hope tremendously after 1991 but their hope later attached to Putin-imagine what he faced. For example, can you imagine becoming the leader of such a country and for the sake of consensus having a textbook putting together Tsarist, Soviet and post-Soviet history? Our presidents had a hard time dealing with slave and post-slave, Civil War and post-Civil War history. How do they do it? Each president did it differently, but Putin inherited this conflicting history, and the way he's tried to patch all three together into a consensual way for Russians to view their history and to teach kids in school is very interesting. Now, of course, it's being ruptured again with this war and with Crimea and with this new nationalism.

I'd like to change the subject. Often in the books you mention an interest in alternatives: What could've happened if this or that hadn't. We just covered one, the missed opportunity for a historically logical social democratic outcome in Russia. How do you account for this tendency in your thinking?

We have formative experiences-what shaped you, at least so you think when you look back. You don't know it at the time, you don't know a formative experience is formative until later. You'd agree with that.

It's only in hindsight. "Reality takes form only in memory." Proust.

For me it was growing up in the segregated South. But the reality was valid in retrospect, because I later realized that what I was doing had been so shaped by growing up in the segregated South, the way I reacted to that and the way I learned from it later, actually, in a strange way, led me to Russia.

You suggested this in the book on gulag returnees, "The Victims Return." I wonder if you could explain the connection. How did growing up in Kentucky [Cohen was raised in Owensboro] lead you to Russian studies, and what does it do for your analysis of the Russian situation? How does a Kentucky childhood keep you alert to alternatives?

Well, you have to remember what segregation was. I didn't understand this as a little boy, but it was American apartheid. Owensboro, probably had fewer than 20,000 people then, including the farmers. For a kid growing up in a completely segregated county, first of all, the world you're born into is the normal world. I had no questions about it…. I didn't perceive the injustice of it.

And then you get older and you begin to see the injustice and you wonder, how did this happen?… At Indiana University I run into this professor who becomes my mentor, Robert C. Tucker, [Tucker, who died in 2010, was a distinguished Russianist and author of a celebrated biography of Stalin]. I'd been to Russia-accidentally, I went on a tour-and he asked, "What in Russia interests you?" And I said, "Well, I'm from Kentucky, and I've always wondered if there was an alternative in Kentucky's history between being deep South and not being deep South." And Tucker said, "You know, one of the biggest questions in Russian history is lost alternatives. Nobody ever studies them." And I said, "Aha!"

So the title of your 2009 book, "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives," is in his honor?

I began to live in Russia in 1976, for two or three months a year until they took my visa away in 1982. This is when I got deeply involved in the dissident movement, smuggling manuscripts out and books back in and all these things. I begin to think, how does Russia change today? And my mind reverted to segregation and the end of segregation and the friends and foes of change…. I wrote an article called "The Friends and Foes of Change" about reformism and conservatism in the Soviet system, because I thought that it was institutions, it was culture, it was history and leaders and that you needed a conjunction of these events before you could get major change in Russia and the Soviet Union…. I published that as an article in 1976 or 1977 and I expanded it for a book I wrote, "Rethinking the Soviet Experience," which was published in 1985, a month before Gorbachev came to power. And everybody would later say, "He foresaw Gorbachev."

Actually I didn't quite. What I foresaw was perestroika. For me it wasn't about the name of the leader, but the policy such leader would enact. I got one thing wrong. Because it was so hard to make this argument in Cold War America, that the Soviet Union had a capacity for reform awaiting it, if factors came together. I didn't think to carry the argument beyond liberalization to actual democratization. So I didn't foresee a Gorbachev who would enact actual democratization, free voting, and dismantle the Communist Party…. But I always thought that thinking about the history of Kentucky, living through segregation, watching the change, seeing the civil rights movement, seeing the resistance to it and why helped me think more clearly about the Soviet Union under Brezhnev and about my dissident friends. And I also knew reformers in the party bureaucracy pretty well, and when we would talk at night, I never mentioned this but my mind would always kind of drift back.

The connection is not at all obvious but you explain it very well and it's clear once you do.

Well, sometimes people read a book that opens their eyes. I think the whole secret, particularly as you get older… Trotsky I think wrote that after some age, I think he said 39 or 45, all we do is document our prejudices. And there's some truth to that, obviously. But one of the ways that you avoid becoming dogmatic about your own published views is to keep looking for things that challenge what you think. You try to filter them through whatever intellectual apparatus you've been using for, in my case, 40 years.

I thought it would be interesting to get through those sections of Kennan's journals ["The Kennan Diaries," 2014] that would be germane to our exchange. What struck me coming away from them was the enormous sadness and pessimism that hung over him in the later years. I wonder if you share that.

My position has always been, America doesn't need a friend in the Kremlin. We need a national security partner. Friendships often don't last. Partnerships based on common interests, compatible self-interests, do.

I have always known such a partnership would be difficult to achieve because there are so many differences, conflicts, and Cold War landmines. There were numerous chances to enhance the relationship-during the Nixon-Brezhnev détente period, Gorbachev and Reagan, Gorbachev and Bush, even with Putin after 9/11, when he helped [George W.] Bush in Afghanistan. But they all became lost opportunities, those after 1991 lost mainly in Washington, n ot Moscow.

When I speak of lost alternatives I do not mean the counter-factuals employed by novelists and some historians-the invention of "what-ifs." I mean actual alternatives that existed politically at turning points in history, and why one road was taken and not the other. Much of my work has focused on this large question in Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history and in U.S.-Russian relations.

So you ask if I'm disappointed by the lost opportunities for an American-Russian partnership, especially in light of the terrible confrontation over Ukraine? Having struggled for such a partnership for about 40 years, yes, of course, I'm personally disappointed-and even more so by the Ukraine crisis because I think it may be fateful in the worst sense.

On the other hand, as an historian who has specialized in lost alternatives, well, now I have another to study, to put in historical context and analyze. And it's my historical analysis-that an alternative in Ukraine was squandered primarily in Washington, not primarily in Moscow-that those who slur me don't like.

To which I reply, Let them study history, because few of them, if any, seem ever to have done so.

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.

[Jun 20, 2015]Charleston and the National-Security State

"...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."
Jun 19, 2015 | The Future of Freedom Foundation

... 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.

... ... ...

[Jun 18, 2015] Torture is a war crime the government treats like a policy debate

"...Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at the Very Top on down. Now. "
.
"...Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with this two-tiered justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who blow the whistle on them. While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week, reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at TomDispatch"
.
"...The routine use of torture by Savak may well have contributed heavily to the failure of the Shah, particularly considering that these people were probably concentrated in the cities where most of the action took place."
Jun 17, 2015 | The Guardian
Torture architects are television pundits and given enormous book contracts while Guantanamo detainees still can't discuss what happened to them

GUANTANAMO
Prisoners haven't been allowed to talk about what happened to them here. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Wednesday 17 June 2015 07.15 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 17 June 2015 13.35 EDT

Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at the Very Top on down. Now.

CraigSummers, 17 Jun 2015 16:16)

  • The evidence that torture doesn't work is overwhelming.
  • http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work
  • http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/08/world/does-torture-work-the-cias-claims-and-what-the-committee-found.html?_r=0
  • http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-torture-report-released
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11283082/Does-the-use-of-torture-ever-work.html
  • http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/09/dick-cheney-defends-torture-al-qaida
  • capatriot -> CraigSummers 17 Jun 2015 16:12

    The president's oath is to obey the law, the constitution, not to "keep Americans safe." Torture is illegal for good and proper reasons. It cannot be used and, if used, must be prosecuted and punished.

    It is immaterial if it "works" ... this is not Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer; this is real governance: a govt of laws, not men.

    bloggod 17 Jun 2015 16:07

    "The only reason a host of current and former CIA officials aren't already in jail is because of cowardice on the Obama administration," says Timm
    ________

    An emphatic collusion of many more complicit parties would seem to suggest the world is not run by Obama...

    ID8667623 17 Jun 2015 15:30

    Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with this two-tiered justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who blow the whistle on them.

    While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week, reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at TomDispatch:

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175327/tomgram%3A_alfred_mccoy%2C_taking_down_america

    gbob5366 -> outkast1213 17 Jun 2015 14:54

    I, being a US citizen, feel that it is up to us to stand up to US imperialism.
    Until we, in the US, stand up and say "Enough", this country will continue it's attack upon the world.

    Wake up America --

    PS. You see that the war has come home... just look at the military armament being used by the police. And, we need to stand up all together! Please, Mr. Policeman, don't shoot us. Protect us against the 1%.

    JimHorn 17 Jun 2015 11:20

    In the run up to the Iranian Revolution, I worked with an Iranian woman in a restaurant. She wore the same short sleeve blouse as the others, and her skirt was only an inch or two longer. Her husband was a grad student at the university. Obviously thoroughly westernized. I took the opportunity to ask an actual Iranian about the events that were happening in her homeland.

    She told me that her brother, a student, had been picked up and tortured by Savak, the Shah's secret police. She said

    "No one in my family, my father, my brothers, my uncles, my cousins, - will support the Shah. We hate Khomeini, but we also hate the Shah. We will let Khomeini overthrow the Shah and then we will overthrow Khomeini."

    These were people who should have been on the side of the westernizing Shah but sat on the sidelines. Some reports say that Savak may have treated up to 100,000 people like this woman's brother. Allowing for ten adult relatives per victim, we get a million westernized Iranians. The population at the time was about 30 million. The routine use of torture by Savak may well have contributed heavily to the failure of the Shah, particularly considering that these people were probably concentrated in the cities where most of the action took place.

    Note that Savak, sadly, trained by our CIA, was intent on preventing a communist takeover and concentrated on those who wished to westernize government as well as the economy. They utterly failed to deal with the threat from religious conservatives.

    [Jun 16, 2015] Hillary Clinton ducks questions on trade deals during New Hampshire visit

    Notable quotes:
    "... But, listen, lets review the rules. Heres how it works: the president makes decisions. Hes the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ..."
    "... The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. ..."
    "... She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea. ..."
    "... Lets face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton. ..."
    "... You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - middle class means anyone whos in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasnt made it into the top 1% because theyre too damned lazy. ..."
    Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

    FugitiveColors 15 Jun 2015 23:52

    She can talk til her pantsuit turns blue.
    I have already decided that my ballot will have Bernie Sanders on it one way or another.
    I don't believe her. I don't like her, and I damn sure won't vote for her.
    She is a blue corporate stooge and not much different than a red corporate stooge.
    Bernie is honest and after all of those years in politics, he is not rich.
    You can't say that about a single other candidate.


    libbyliberal -> Timothy Everton 15 Jun 2015 23:47

    Yo, Timothy, Paul Street recently reminded his readers of part of Colbert's speech at the Correspondents' Dinner way back in 2006 (time flies while we're sinking into fascism):

    "But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"

    Timothy Everton -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 22:36

    Sorry Not-so-enlightenedgirl. WE don't elect government officials, and we don't pay them for "not putting the screws to us". They get elected, paid, and influenced by lobbyists for the wealthy one percent, and by the corporations, who both fund their campaigns for future favors rendered. Those with the most funding for the prettiest and most abundant campaign ads are those elected. And yes, they DO put the screws to us, the American public. This woman is more a puppet for those interests than some Republicans.

    Timothy Everton -> libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 22:11

    "The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates."

    Sorry libby, I don't see them crowding around Bernie Sanders, the only viable candidate FOR the AVERAGE American. In fact, I believe he had more "press time" before he became a candidate.

    That is the way it goes here though. Get an honest candidate who speaks her/his mind, and you get no press coverage - way too dangerous for those who actually control our government through lobbyists.


    libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 21:42

    What is this business about Hillary NOT "taking the bait" of a reporter's questions? Hillary needs to be challenged and not be the one in control with her gobsmackingly well-funded pr info-mercial steamrolling her presidential challenge.

    The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. This is what THEY say their policy is and will be. Not critical thinking of the journalist, no connecting of the dots, to be applied?

    Their talk sure is cheap and seductive. Obama gave us major lessons in that in 2008 and again in 2012. More nicey-nice sounding bull-sh*t that is vague or downright mendacious to the realpolitik agenda.

    Hillary wants to talk about what is convenient and safe for her. Identity politics. Generalized populist feel-good rhetoric. Nothing substantial with the globalized and corporatized trade deals OR the massive violent US-sponsored or direct militarism around the globe.

    Hillary's NYC Four Freedoms Park speech: lack of mention of foreign policy except for some threats on China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. No mention of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan. No mention of drone warfare. No mention of NSA surveillance. No mention of police violence.

    She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea.

    Hillary skipped addressing the inconvenient and the media and her fan base had no problem with such gobsmacking omissions. Hillary decides that the US citizenry doesn't want to focus on foreign policy and she ramps up vague populist rhetoric like Obama did back in 2008 to convince the citizenry she is their champion even though she personally has amassed over $100 million from her financial elite cronies over the decades and if you think that fortune has no influence on who she is championing there's a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn you should look into buying.

    Let's face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton.


    Vladimir Makarenko -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 19:19

    "diplomacy so badly needed after the disastrous term of Bush and Cheney and their destruction of the Middle East." If anything she extended B & Ch policies by destroying Libya and turning it in a murderous breeding ground for Islamic ultras. She was at helm of arming Syrian "opposition" better known today as ISIS.

    Her record as a Secretary is dismal - line by line no achievements, no solved problems but disaster by disaster.

    talenttruth 15 Jun 2015 18:34

    If the Democratic party nominates the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, rather than someone real who ACTUALLY represents the middle class, tells the truth and is NOT part of the "corporately bought-and-sold" insider group, then it will be heads-or-tails whether she wins or one of the totally insane, whack-job Republi-saur candidates wins.

    If she keeps on doing what she's been doing, she will LOOK just like those arrogant "insiders" the Republicans claim her to be (despite the fact that they are FAR FAR FAR worse, but much better at lying about that than any Democrat). Hillary is a VERY VERY WEAK candidate, because the huge "middle" of decent Americans is looking for real change, and not -- as well -- a Republican change WAY for the worse.

    This Election is the Democratic Party's to LOSE. Hillary could make that happen (no matter how much worse ANY Republican victor will likely be). What a choice.

    sour_mash -> goatrider 15 Jun 2015 18:09

    "...why doesn't the disgusting American media ask the Republicans who support it to explain themselves too. Why are they so eager to join Obama in destroying the American middle class?"

    After +6 years of the then Republican Party, now known as the Christian Jihad Party or CJP, making Obama a one term president it smells to high heaven that they now agree on this single issue.

    Yes, where are the questions.

    Whitt 15 Jun 2015 18:03

    Because they're not "destroying the American middle class". You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - "middle class" means anyone who's in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasn't made it into the top 1% because they're too damned lazy.

    [Jun 16, 2015] Jeb Bush's campaign debut: protester showdown met with chants of 'USA'

    Notable quotes:
    "... sandra oconnor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected. ..."
    "... All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who dont want change. All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant. ..."
    "... Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful. And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions. There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while its institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful. ..."
    "... The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee. ..."
    "... Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that hes the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite. ..."
    Jun 15, 2015 | The Guardian

    eileen1 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:48

    Neither a Bush nor a Clinton. They're both poisonous in different ways.

    eileen1 -> WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 23:47

    There is no difference between Bush and Obama, except Obama is smarter and more devious.

    redbanana33 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:27

    "are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance?"

    No, I never said I believed there was corruption and connivance. Those are your words. Your personal opinion. MY words were that if more voters had wanted Gore as their president, he would have won. As it was, he couldn't even carry his home state. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and so we make excuses for what we perceive as injustice, when, in reality, more people just didn't think like you did in that election. But blame the court (bet you can't even clearly state what the case points they were asked to consider, without googling it) and blame the Clintons and even blame poor Ralph for your guy's lack of popularity. If it makes you feel better, go for it. It won't change the past.

    And, speaking of presidents winning by a hair's breadth, shall we talk about how Joe Kennedy bribed his way to electing his son? Hmmmm? Except that even the crook Nixon had enough class to concede rather than drag the country through months of misery like your hero did.

    mabcalif -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:50

    there have been more than one excellent president who's won that office only by a hair's breadth.

    are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption and connivance? particularly when the outcome was so disastrous for the country and the world?

    it wasn't a question of being more popular, it's a question of being overwhelmed by the clinton scandal, a brother governor willing to throw the state's votes and by a supreme court that was arrayed against him (sandra o'connor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected.) not to mention a quixotic exercise in third party politics with a manifestly inadequate candidate that had no foreign policy experience

    Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:43

    Yes some people need to be reminded, especially about the falsification/lies completing the 2009 voter-registration form.

    bishoppeter4 15 Jun 2015 22:39

    Jeb and his father and brother ought to be in jail !

    Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:38

    His point is that "No more president with the name BUSH" in the White House. He can change his name to something like Moron or Terrone. Let him drop that name because Americans have NOT and will NOT recover from the regime of the last Bush.

    redbanana33 -> Con Mc Cusker 15 Jun 2015 22:30

    Then (respectfully) the rest of the world needs to grow some balls, get up off their asses, define their vision, and strike out on their own as controllers of their own destinies.

    After that, you'll have the right to criticize my country. Right now you don't have that right. Get off the wagon and help pull it.

    ponderwell -> Peter Ciurczak 15 Jun 2015 22:25

    Politics is about maneuvering to get your own way. In Jebya speak it means whatever will
    lead to power. Hillary sounds trite and poorly staged.

    Jeez, now Trump wants more attention...a big yawn.

    WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 22:24

    His brother should be in prison for war crimes and crimes against Humanity. Jeb violated election laws to put his brother in office so he is also responsible for turning this nation into a terrorist country.

    ExcaliburDefender -> Zenit2 15 Jun 2015 22:03

    No $hit $herlock, he met his wife when they were both 17, in MEXICO. Jeb has a degree in Latin Studies too.

    Just vote, the Tea Party always does.

    :<)

    ExcaliburDefender 15 Jun 2015 22:01

    Jeb may very well be the most qualified of the GOP, and he can speak intelligently on immigration, if his campaign/RNC would allow it.

    Too bad we don't have other GOPers like Huntsman and even Steve Forbes, yes I enjoyed Forbes being part of the debates in 96, even voted for him in the primary. And not because I thought he would win, but I wanted him to be heard.

    Debates will be interesting, Trump is jumping in for the 4th time.

    #allvotesmatter

    fflambeau 15 Jun 2015 22:00

    The USA presidential campaign looks very much like a world wrestling match (one of those fake ones). Only the wrestlers are more intelligent.

    MisterMeaner 15 Jun 2015 21:59

    Jebya. Whoopty Goddam Doo.

    ponderwell 15 Jun 2015 21:52

    Jebby exclaimed: 'The country is going in the wrong direction'. Omitting the direction W Bush sent the U.S. into with false info. and willful intention to bomb Iraq for the sake of an egotistical purpose.

    And, the insane numerous disasters W sponsored. The incorrigible Bush Clan !

    benluk 15 Jun 2015 21:49

    Jeb Bush, "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," Jeb Bush

    But not as improbable as letting another war mongering Bush in the White House.

    gilbertratchet -> BehrHunter 15 Jun 2015 21:42

    Indeed, and it seems that Bush III thinks it's a virtue not a problem:

    "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," began Bush. "And that's from the guy who met his first president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was brought home from the hospital..."

    No Jeb, that would be improbable for me. For you it was a normal childhood day. But it's strange you're pushing the "born to rule" angle. I guess it's those highly paid consultants who tell you that you have to own the issue before it defines you.

    Guess what... No amount of spin will change your last name.

    gorianin 15 Jun 2015 21:35

    Jeb Bush already fixed one election. Now he's looking to "fix" the country.

    seasonedsenior 15 Jun 2015 21:29

    Stop calling him Jeb. Sounds folksy and everyman like. His name is John E. Bush. And he's from a family of billionaires. Don't let him pull a what's-her-name in Spokane. He was a rich baby, child, young man, Governor ...on and on and is completely out of touch with the common man.

    He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his sensibilities are built of money gained off the backs of the workers of this country. He is big oil to his core.

    Caesar Ol 15 Jun 2015 21:27

    Jeb is the dumbest of all the Bushes. Therefore the most dangerous as someone will manipulate him the way that Cheney did with Bush.

    ChelsieGreen 15 Jun 2015 21:27

    Interesting thing is that Bush is old school Republican, spend big, be the power to the world.

    Since his brother/father left office the party moved on, Tea Party may have faded slightly but they are not big spenders, they are small government. Jeb will have trouble making a mark in the early states to be the nominee, he is considered center-right.

    The right wing of the party thinks where they slipped up was not nominating someone right-wing enough, they will portray him as weak on immigration and chew him up.


    Brookstone1 15 Jun 2015 21:11

    America has been wounded badly by the reckless and stupidity of the Republicans under the leadership of G. W. Bush. And now it would be a DEADLY MISTAKE to even ponder about voting Republican again, let alone voting for another Bush! The Bush family has nothing in common with ordinary Americans!

    NO MORE BUSH!!!

    nubwaxer 15 Jun 2015 21:03

    i heard his punchlines about "fixing" america to get us back to free enterprise and freedom. dear jeb, we know what you mean and free enterprise is code for corporatism run wild and repeal of regulations. similarly when you say freedom you mean that for rich white males and right to work laws, union busting, repeal of minimum wage laws, no paid vacation or maternity leave and especially the freedom to go bankrupt, suffer, and die for lack of health care insurance. more like freedumb.

    Xoxarle -> sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:33

    All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who don't want change.

    All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS.

    All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant.

    All candidates are promising bipartisanship and yet are part of the dysfunction in DC, pandering to special interests or extreme factions that reject compromise.

    ID6995146 15 Jun 2015 20:33

    Another Saudi hand-holder and arse licker.


    OlavVI -> catch18 15 Jun 2015 20:24

    And he's already got Wolfowitz, one of the worst war mongers (ala Cheney) in US history as an adviser. Probably dreaming up several wars for Halliburton, et al., to rake up billions of $$$$ from the poor (the rich pretty much get off in the US).

    concious 15 Jun 2015 20:20

    USA chant is Nationalism, not Patriotism. Is this John Ellis Bush really going to get votes?

    sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:02

    Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful.

    And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions.

    There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while it's institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful.

    OurPlanet -> briteblonde1 15 Jun 2015 19:34

    He's a great "fixer" Him and his tribe in Florida certainly fixed those chads for his brother's election success in 2000. A truly rich family of oilmen . What could be better? Possibly facing if inaugerated as the GOP nominee to face the possibly successful Democrat nominee Clinton. So the choice of 2016 menu for American election year is 2 Fish that stink. Welcome to the American Plutocracy.

    Sam Ahmed 15 Jun 2015 19:23

    I wonder if the state of Florida will try "Fix" the vote count for Jeb as they did for Georgie. I wonder if the Republicans can "Fix" their own party. You know what, I don't want the Republican party to think I'm bashing them, so I'll request a major tune up for Hillary Clinton too. Smiles all around! =)

    Cyan Eyed 15 Jun 2015 18:48

    A family linked to weapons manufacturers through Harriman.
    A family linked to weapons dealing through Carlyle.
    A family linked to the formation of terrorist networks (including Al Qaeda).
    A family linked to an attempted coup on America.
    The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee.

    davshev 15 Jun 2015 18:43

    Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that he's the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite.

    [Jun 14, 2015] Bush and Hawkish Magical Thinking

    Notable quotes:
    "... 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. ..."
    Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative
    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.

    [Jun 14, 2015] An Inconvenient Truth The Bush Administration Was a Disaster

    Jun 14, 2015 | The American Conservative

    Most Americans remember the Bush years as a period of expanding government, ruinous war, and economic collapse. They voted for Obama the first time as a repudiation of those developments. Many did so a second time because most Republicans continue to pretend that they never happened.

    [Jun 14, 2015]Czech media about G7: why does Putin need this farce

    http://inosmi.ru/overview/20150614/228573906.html#ixzz3d5Y4ajCh

    Discussion G7 summit one of the famous Czech supporters of Russian politics Jiří Vivagel (Jiří Vyvadil)wrote in Parlamentní listy that Vladimir Putin has nothing to do at this meeting

    In his opinion, today the G7 is not longer a group bringing together the most economically powerful countries of the world. Today, the G7 is the neoliberal ideology club of the Western world in its struggle against Russia and its allies which are forming "A Political East".

    Threats, allegations and support for the regime "dangerous lunatics" is all that west currently does. Russia should not participate in this farce, convinced Jiří Vivagel. The fact that Vladimir Putin does not allow himself to drag into the bellicose rhetoric of the West, gives hope that a local conflict will not grow into a global. In conclusion, the article Jiří Vivagel expresses hope that the jingoistic Western politicians from G7 soon runs out of power.

    A diametrically opposite view on the value and message of the G7 expressed on the portal Neviditelný pes (9.6) author under the pseudonym of Aston. In his view, the main purpose of the last meeting of leaders of the G7 countries - again to threaten Russia, including sanctions. Yes, possibly, Western sanctions are not too dangerous to RF, but that's no reason to mitigate or even cancel them.

    [Jun 04, 2015] March of the Imperial Senators

    "...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."
    May 29, 2015 | http://www.theamericanconservative.com

    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.

    [Jun 02, 2015]The Delusional World Of Imperial Washington

    Notable quotes:
    .
    "... What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance? This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe." "
    .
    "...The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial overstretch." As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power to defend all of them simultaneously.""
    .
    dir="ltr">"...But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality."
    Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Michael Klare via TomDispatch.com,

    Think of this as a little imperial folly update -- and here's the backstory.

    In the years after invading Iraq and disbanding Saddam Hussein's military, the U.S. sunk about $25 billion into "standing up" a new Iraqi army. By June 2014, however, that army, filled with at least 50,000 "ghost soldiers," was only standing in the imaginations of its generals and perhaps Washington. When relatively small numbers of Islamic State (IS) militants swept into northern Iraq, it collapsed, abandoning four cities -- including Mosul, the country's second largest -- and leaving behind enormous stores of U.S. weaponry, ranging from tanks and Humvees to artillery and rifles. In essence, the U.S. was now standing up its future enemy in a style to which it was unaccustomed and, unlike the imploded Iraqi military, the forces of the Islamic State proved quite capable of using that weaponry without a foreign trainer or adviser in sight.

    In response, the Obama administration dispatched thousands of new advisers and trainers and began shipping in piles of new weaponry to re-equip the Iraqi army. It also filled Iraqi skies with U.S. planes armed with their own munitions to destroy, among other things, some of that captured U.S. weaponry. Then it set to work standing up a smaller version of the Iraqi army. Now, skip nearly a year ahead and on a somewhat lesser scale the whole process has just happened again. Less than two weeks ago, Islamic State militants took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province. Iraqi army units, including the elite American-trained Golden Division, broke and fled, leaving behind -- you'll undoubtedly be shocked to hear -- yet another huge cache of weaponry and equipment, including tanks, more than 100 Humvees and other vehicles, artillery, and so on.

    The Obama administration reacted in a thoroughly novel way: it immediately began shipping in new stocks of weaponry, starting with 1,000 antitank weapons, so that the reconstituted Iraqi military could take out future "massive suicide vehicle bombs" (some of which, assumedly, will be those captured vehicles from Ramadi). Meanwhile, American planes began roaming the skies over that city, trying to destroy some of the equipment IS militants had captured.

    Notice anything repetitive in all this -- other than another a bonanza for U.S. weapons makers? Logically, it would prove less expensive for the Obama administration to simply arm the Islamic State directly before sending in the air strikes. In any case, what a microcosm of U.S. imperial hubris and folly in the twenty-first century all this training and equipping of the Iraqi military has proved to be. Start with the post-invasion decision of the Bush administration to totally disband Saddam's army and instantly eject hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sunni military men and a full officer corps into the chaos of the "new" Iraq and you have an instant formula for creating a Sunni resistance movement. Then, add in a little extra "training" at Camp Bucca, a U.S. military prison in Iraq, for key unemployed officers, and -- Voilà! -- you've helped set up the petri dish in which the leadership of the Islamic State movement will grow. Multiply such stunning tactical finesse many times over globally and, as TomDispatch regular Michael Klare makes clear today, you have what might be called the folly of the "sole superpower" writ large.

    Delusionary Thinking in Washington

    The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower

    Take a look around the world and it's hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington's dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?

    This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe."

    Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington

    Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington's power brokers assumed that there would always be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance. In the wake of the utterly unexpected Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a "sole superpower" (aka Rome on the Potomac). In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it declared: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

    H.W.'s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he told military cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be "to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity -- given few nations in history -- to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future. A chance to project America's peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years."

    For Bush, of course, "extending the peace" would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after it began, he did not doubt -- nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight) does he today -- that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted status as the world's sole superpower.

    The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial overstretch." As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power to defend all of them simultaneously."

    Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What's curious, however, is just how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the planet's first "hyperpower," a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.'s miscalculation in Iraq and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying, in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas -- among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the South China Sea -- but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.

    Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington's power elite -- Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule -- seems to have the slightest urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country's strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision. "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation," he told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. "That has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come."

    How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment to global supremacy?

    The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire circus act. It involves the constant juggling of America's capabilities and commitments, with its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration. Call it the Obama Doctrine.

    After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers decided to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in the western Pacific. Announcing this shift in 2011 -- it would first be called a "pivot to Asia" and then a "rebalancing" there -- the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.

    "After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region," he told members of the Australian Parliament that November. "As we end today's wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority. As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not -- I repeat, will not -- come at the expense of the Asia Pacific."

    Then, of course, the new Islamic State launched its offensive in Iraq in June 2014 and the American-trained army there collapsed with the loss of four northern cities. Videoed beheadings of American hostages followed, along with a looming threat to the U.S.-backed regime in Baghdad. Once again, President Obama found himself pivoting -- this time sending thousands of U.S. military advisers back to that country, putting American air power into its skies, and laying the groundwork for another major conflict there.

    Meanwhile, Republican critics of the president, who claim he's doing too little in a losing effort in Iraq (and Syria), have also taken him to task for not doing enough to implement the pivot to Asia. In reality, as his juggling act that satisfies no one continues in Iraq and the Pacific, he's had a hard time finding the wherewithal to effectively confront Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the various militias fighting for power in fragmenting Libya, and so on.

    The Party of Utter Denialism

    Clearly, in the face of multiplying threats, juggling has not proven to be a viable strategy. Sooner or later, the "balls" will simply go flying and the whole system will threaten to fall apart. But however risky juggling may prove, it is not nearly as dangerous as the other strategic response to superpower decline in Washington: utter denial.

    For those who adhere to this outlook, it's not America's global stature that's eroding, but its will -- that is, its willingness to talk and act tough. If Washington were simply to speak more loudly, so this argument goes, and brandish bigger sticks, all these challenges would simply melt away. Of course, such an approach can only work if you're prepared to back up your threats with actual force, or "hard power," as some like to call it.

    Among the most vocal of those touting this line is Senator John McCain, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a persistent critic of President Obama. "For five years, Americans have been told that 'the tide of war is receding,' that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values," he typically wrote in March 2014 in a New York Times op-ed. "This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative." The only way to prevent aggressive behavior by Russia and other adversaries, he stated, is "to restore the credibility of the United States as a world leader." This means, among other things, arming the Ukrainians and anti-Assad Syrians, bolstering the NATO presence in Eastern Europe, combating "the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses," and playing a "more robust" role (think: more "boots" on more ground) in the war against ISIS.

    Above all, of course, it means a willingness to employ military force. "When aggressive rulers or violent fanatics threaten our ideals, our interests, our allies, and us," he declared last November, "what ultimately makes the difference… is the capability, credibility, and global reach of American hard power."

    A similar approach -- in some cases even more bellicose -- is being articulated by the bevy of Republican candidates now in the race for president, Rand Paul again excepted. At a recent "Freedom Summit" in the early primary state of South Carolina, the various contenders sought to out-hard-power each other. Florida Senator Marco Rubio was loudly cheered for promising to make the U.S. "the strongest military power in the world." Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker received a standing ovation for pledging to further escalate the war on international terrorists: "I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight to us."

    In this overheated environment, the 2016 presidential campaign is certain to be dominated by calls for increased military spending, a tougher stance toward Moscow and Beijing, and an expanded military presence in the Middle East. Whatever her personal views, Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate, will be forced to demonstrate her backbone by embracing similar positions. In other words, whoever enters the Oval Office in January 2017 will be expected to wield a far bigger stick on a significantly less stable planet. As a result, despite the last decade and a half of interventionary disasters, we're likely to see an even more interventionist foreign policy with an even greater impulse to use military force.

    However initially gratifying such a stance is likely to prove for John McCain and the growing body of war hawks in Congress, it will undoubtedly prove disastrous in practice. Anyone who believes that the clock can now be turned back to 2002, when U.S. strength was at its zenith and the Iraq invasion had not yet depleted American wealth and vigor, is undoubtedly suffering from delusional thinking. China is far more powerful than it was 13 years ago, Russia has largely recovered from its post-Cold War slump, Iran has replaced the U.S. as the dominant foreign actor in Iraq, and other powers have acquired significantly greater freedom of action in an unsettled world. Under these circumstances, aggressive muscle-flexing in Washington is likely to result only in calamity or humiliation.

    Time to Stop Pretending

    Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of this predicament?

    Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it's not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie of other major powers -- none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power, Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers -- Russia, China, and Iran among them -- and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous regional firestorms.

    If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this country's "war capital," this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global superpower status and, "rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis… should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion." Layne and others have spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge to garrison the planet, reduced military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.

    But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower -- and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality.

    [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. ..."
    foreignpolicy.com

    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.

    [May 28, 2015] USA and EU playing politics with gas

    et Al, May 28, 2015 at 8:27 am
    hAPpy: AP Interview: Under US pressure, Serbia ready to reduce dependence on Russian gas supplies
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_SERBIA_US?SITE=PAREA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    In a major policy shift, the Serbian prime minister said his country will accept U.S. calls to reduce dependency on Russian gas by adding an American-backed pipeline that would bring gas to Europe from Azerbaijan.

    "Regarding energy safety, energy security, we are ready to diversify the sources of gas for Serbia, which is very important for our American friends as well," Aleksandar Vucic told The Associated Press in an interview.

    The United States has been encouraging Balkan and other states to move forward with the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, which will take Azeri gas from the Caspian Sea to Italy, rather than setting its hopes on another project that would pipe Russian gas through Turkey.

    The West has accused Russia of using gas as a tool to increase its political influence over countries like Serbia…

    ###

    Poor Vucic, I wonder what they threatened him with to get him to get this empty propaganda statement victory for The Empire? Another visit from Fruit Cake McCain, or maybe that they'd let the Albanians tear another strip of Serbian land for their Naturalist Albania project (where Albanians can walk naked freely and their corrupt politicians, institutions and organized crime syndicates can hold naked bbqs together without fear of arrest). If he played his role sensibly, he would have pretended to resist and got something decent in return. I doubt it.

    Still, as I wrote here a few days ago: https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/is-it-too-early-to-just-call-the-game-for-putin/comment-page-5/#comment-106537

    …As far as I can see and from what I have read so far, all pipelines within Europe will be interconnected, regardless of transit agreements or energy packages. Russia doesn't care once it is in as you have already pointed out…

    And most of us here (unlike the West) understand fully that once the Russian gas arrives at the Turkish/Greek border, that's it. They don't care what happens next.

    So, the news is just fluff and doesn't change the fundamentals. Serbia did not say it would dump TESLA for TAP. There still needs to be a pipeline and thus interconnection of pipelines now looks inevitable. If Moscow is funding TESLA, then it will be a straight forward commercial deal.

    On another level, the timing does say a lot. As quite a few people have pointed out already, the current problems in Macedonia also have extremely convenient timing for The Empire's geopolitical goals, so it would be remiss of the US not to take advantage (whether they are behind the crisis in Macedonia or not) and put the squeeze on the US. Still, it seems like an awful amount of effort for very little in concrete result. I suppose on this level it is just "If you don't use it, you lose it".

    marknesop, May 28, 2015 at 11:03 am
    Mmmm, yes; we've discussed that on several occasions, and this is just more ludicrous posturing by Captain Indispensable. As discussed in the final paragraph of this post, 25% of the natural gas consumed in Europe comes from Russia, by far the largest supplier. Azerbaijan is not even mentioned as a supplier, but as discussed here, its president – Ilham Aliyev – was awarded the unenviable title of Most Corrupt Person of 2012 by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. The flows Europe will be looking for exceed the Shah Deniz field's capacity.

    Perhaps someday Europe will come to rue the day it allowed its decision-making to be done in Washington and rubber-stamped by Brussels, although it is likely to make Aliyev a happy man in the short term. But that day is evidently not today. And so Europe will blunder about, trying to do the will of its master, until the time to engineer hookup to Russian gas supplies has run out. Then it will squeal that Putin is using energy as a weapon. It has failed to note that if Russia really needed to deliver gas directly to the consumer – paying all transit expenses itself – it would do so, and its present unconcern is not affected, but an actual reflection of its lack of concern whether Europe wants gas or not. Because it knows that Europe will want gas, because it can't get it anywhere else in the volumes it needs, and nothing will bring prices up like a little healthy panic. Predictable as death and taxes.

    Perhaps in the near future, the coming of spring will be reflected as much by Europe's cockiness regarding its gas requirements as much as the appearance of robins. Cocky in spring, desperate in autumn. Not this year, because its gas will still come through Ukraine. But keep an eye on the volume it takes. An interesting note here is that of the 63 BCm Turkish Stream is expected to carry annually (construction started earlier this month), only 47 BCm of it is expected to be made available to Europe at the Turkish/Greek border.

    If you look at the language Sefcovic used back in March, he spoke of Europe as "a big client" and moaned about Russia making all these decisions without consulting "Gazprom's long-term European customers". It is fairly obvious that Europe knows all its mouthing off about weaning itself off of Russian gas is just lip service to please Washington – wean itself on to…what? As an old naval saying goes, don't let your mouth get your face in trouble.

    kat kan, May 28, 2015 at 11:59 am
    With all the messing around, they will not get ANY pipeline ready in time. Then Russia will generously sell them (at THEIR price) through Ukraine, by then run out of bullets; they'll let Ukraine have some transit money, otherwise they'll start burning bodies for heat.

    EU of course will still squeal about "playing politics with gas".

    marknesop, May 28, 2015 at 12:12 pm
    Yes, a couple of observations on that note: one, Miller says Gazprom expects to increase its gas exports to Europe this year by something like 5% over 2014, and forecasts Russia's share of supply to Europe may increase to 35% of the total, based on the decline in production in European countries. The writing is on the wall, Europe; I don't know how much clearer it needs to be that you must stop fannying about and pretending to have all these alternatives, you just can't make up your mind so everybody should be paying court to you to gain your favour. Two, Europe is still trying to sweeten the pill for Bulgaria to repay it for standing up to South Stream and getting it cancelled – they're going to be a hub of gas distribution for Romanian gas. We'll see.
    et Al, May 28, 2015 at 2:26 pm
    There was a piece the other day that Russia's gas supply decreased to about 23% whilst Norway's increased to 29 odd percent. I can't find the source now obviously, but in my brief search for the source, I came across this:

    The Independent: Gas imports from Russia's Gazprom giant to soar after new Centrica deal
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/gas-imports-from-russias-gazprom-giant-to-soar-after-new-centrica-deal-10248692.html

    Britain's dependence on Russian energy is set to grow after Centrica announced a deal to increase significantly the amount of gas it buys from Gazprom to 4.16 billion cubic metres (bcm) a year.

    The agreement is the direct result of dwindling North Sea supplies and will see the British Gas owner increase the amount of the gas it imports from the Russian state-controlled giant by 70 per cent.

    The UK needs about 70 bcm of gas a year for heating and electricity and the deal means Gazprom will be meeting nearly 5 per cent of the country's demands….

    …However, because Centrica has struck its agreement with Gazprom's UK subsidiary, which can source supplies from outside Russia if need be, it is expected to be less vulnerable to problems relating to Russia.

    A Centrica spokesman said he was confident that the subsidiary, Gazprom Marketing & Trading, would be able to fulfil its contract: "Russia provides about 30 per cent of Europe's gas imports of about 440bcm a year," he said. "Without Russian volumes, Europe's supply and demand balance would change significantly, impacting the ability of the UK to import materially from continental Europe, or impacting the cost of doing so."…

    …Russia has been a "reliable supplier of gas all the way through the Cold War", and it needed European demand too, he added.

    Well, well, well dear readers! In to the mouth of the beast… And after the UK is forcing Fridman to sell his North Sea assets he bought from the Germans.

    I would guess that ..can source supplies from outside Russia if need be.. would be from storage in Germany and all the new storage in Europe (some of which Gazprom has funded) built since the Ukraine cut off supplies in 2009. I also guess that as I've read Germany is only using <~50% of Nord Stream capacity, Russia could simply more in to available storage. Add to that recent plans to double Nord Steam's capacity and Gazprom has supplies covered whatever the Uke's try, though dependent on transmission from Germany, Byelorussia etc.

    It is all quite hilarious though. For a laugh and If Europe pays for it, Russia could also ship LNG to Europe (the proposed new terminal at Krk, Lithuania and other terminals) It will still be cheaper than the stuff coming from elsewhere too and for a long time before the Leviathan field starts development.

    Honestly, this news shows what a massive gulf there is between what the business people do and what we hear from the PPNN and the porkiticians. One only makes sense if your completely ignore the other! Crazy mofos.

    As for Brussels, they can continue doing a fine job of feeding their private parts in to their own meat-grinder whilst whistling Ode to Joy happily. They're quite good at doing it!

    marknesop, May 28, 2015 at 2:38 pm
    It's hard to imagine Norway's share increasing significantly – and if so, not for long – since its own supplies are in rapid decline and it is taking rapid steps to diversify away from dependence on energy sales. But an increase for Russia over 2014 is really just getting things back up to where they were, as 2014 marked a noticeable drop in European imports from Russia. Perhaps that's what they were talking about.
    kirill, May 28, 2015 at 3:03 pm
    Real world constraints don't apply to the propaganda lala land that the west is living in. It looks more and more Orwellian every day. "Our dependence of Russian gas is declining" as the actual consumption increases. The same as "the rations have been raised again this week".

    [May 27, 2015] Ukraine is now problem for both Russian and West, but West managed to score several points against Russia and do it relatively cheaply

    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!'? ..."
    May 26, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Paul, May 25, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    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.

    karl1haushofer, May 26, 2015 at 2:02 am
    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.

    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:17 am
    Yes, 'If'.
    • 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.
    et Al , May 26, 2015 at 6:12 am
    Here's my take for what it is worth:

    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!

    Paul, May 26, 2015 at 8:37 am
    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.

    et Al, May 26, 2015 at 9:35 am
    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:

    marknesop, May 26, 2015 at 7:38 am
    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.

    Paul, May 26, 2015 at 8:20 am
    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.

    marknesop, May 26, 2015 at 10:17 am
    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.

    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 1:57 am

    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."

    karl1haushofer, May 26, 2015 at 2:07 am
    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.
    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:11 am
    Never is a strong word.
    karl1haushofer , May 26, 2015 at 2:22 am
    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.
    kat kan, May 26, 2015 at 4:54 am
    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.

    marknesop , May 26, 2015 at 7:45 am
    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.
    Moscow Exile, May 26, 2015 at 6:02 am
    From the Brain-Dead Centre of the International Community:

    Some comments:

    • – russians are very friendly people this story is all fake
    • – Yeah! And we'll kill anyone who disagrees!
    • – Russians ARE the blacks of europe. (no offense to russians, blacks, or eurpeans ofc)
    • – The scariest white people are Americans who make fictional Russian accents
    Lyttenburgh, May 26, 2015 at 12:27 pm
    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
    Tim Owen, May 26, 2015 at 2:03 pm
    Yeah that's laughable. On the other hand

    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.

    http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/05/polands-new-president-demands-ukraine.html

    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?

    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    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!'?

    [May 25, 2015] Andrzej Duda victory in Polish presidential election signals shift to right

    Notable quotes:
    "... The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors. ..."
    "... Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control. ..."
    "... Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday. They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors.

    Law and Justice presents itself as a protector of those who have not benefited from the capitalist transformation and as a defender of national interests abroad. It is staunchly pro-US, but has a sometimes defiant stance towards other European partners, which has created tensions in the past with the EU and neighbouring Germany.

    Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control.

    Jacek Kucharczyk, president of the Institute of Public Affairs, an independent thinktank in Warsaw, said Poland's relations with other European powers would now depend on whether Duda sticks to the relatively moderate agenda he campaigned on or embraces his party leader's more combative foreign policy stance.

    "That would be a nightmare scenario for Polish foreign policy, because it would mean getting into conflicts with Germany and anti-EU stunts and aggressive rhetoric towards Russia," Kucharczyk said. "We are in for a bumpy ride. The only question is how bumpy it will be."

    Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday. They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad.

    [May 24, 2015] Ukraine crisis is about Great Power oil, gas pipeline rivalry

    theguardian.com

    Nabaldashnik jonb12321, 6 Mar 2014 5:43

    I am very saddened by the dire economical situation in Ukraine. During all 23 years of independence, the oligarchs and their corrupt cronies in power took turns at pillaging Ukrainian riches. It is a shame that GDP per capita in Ukraine is about 2x lower that in the neighboring Belarus, even though the latter has inferior land and mineral resources, no access to the sea, etc.

    I understand that people of Ukraine are desperate to change this and want to make their "civilizational choice". The current idea is to drop all economic ties with Russia and go full speed ahead to Europe. I am not sure this is such a great idea.

    For example, take a look at Latvia, which already realized its "European dream". In Soviet times Latvia was an industrial republic that produced everything from microchips to cars and trains. Europe did not need all these factories, so they were closed. Everything of value was swallowed by German and Swedish banks.

    You can say that people in Latvia are relatively prosperous. Indeed, their salaries and GDP per capita are about the same as in Russia. However, you should not forget that Latvia is already in the EU and gets a lot of subsidies. Moreover a huge number of Latvians found work in Germany or UK. Many of them emigrated for good, but keep sending money back home to support their relatives.

    Ukraine is not going to be so lucky. First, nobody is inviting them to the EU. The population of Ukraine is more than 20 times higher than in Latvia. So, no amount of financial help from the US or EU would be enough. Second, there will be no work visas to Europe in the foreseeable future. With the industry being disassembled, where all these unemployed will go?

    What is the solution? First, I think, Ukraine should stay closer to Russia, who is willing to help and can help. Second, it must somehow get rid of all those corrupt politicians that keep selling the country to the highest bidder, and replace them with somebody strong, resourceful and smart. Perhaps you can borrow Lukashenko or Putin for a while?

    kawaiikiora LeftOrRightSameShite, 7 Mar 2014 4:00

    Agree .. sure NSA and GHCQ have some interesting correspondence dealing with Ukraine business and banking deals, plus outflow of Kiev funds to offshore bank havens.
    Does General Alexander reply to private requests for info from gullible taxpayers ??!!...

    kawaiikiora jonb12321, 7 Mar 2014 4:03

    Mega bucks talks mega loud..
    Most politicians, of any creed, are basically puppets and you ain´t gonna bite the hand that feeds you..!!
    Poor Ukraine .. the export of attractive young Ukranian women to EU will also increase…….

    Nabaldashnik, 6 Mar 2014 4:51

    I think this article misses many important points in the Russia-Ukraine relationships. Unlike the author, I don't think that the role of Ukraine as an "energy corridors" increases. In my opinion, it actually decreases.

    Ukrainian gas pipeline infrastructure was built mainly in the 1970's when USSR became a major natural gas supplier to Europe. It just happened that most export pipes went through Ukrainian territory. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and Ukraine became an independent country. Initially, Ukraine enjoyed very cheap Russian gas and, in addition, collected extra fees for the gas transit to Europe. At the same time Ukraine started to behave independently and often exercised anti-Russian policies. Russia said: if you want to dissociate from us, then we are not interested in giving you a discount on the natural gas. Please pay us the same price as other European countries do. Ukraine was not happy, of course. Then the two countries went through a series of "gas wars" in which Russia demanded long-term agreements based on the standard European gas formula, Ukraine refused to pay, Russia closed the taps, Europeans did not get their transit gas... Terrible mess.

    At some point Putin decided that enough is enough, and he is not going to be blackmailed by corrupt Ukrainian gas barons anymore. So, he decided to build two gas pipelines that bypass Ukrainian territory. The Nord Stream goes directly to Germany and is fully operational now. The South Stream is being constructed. When the South Stream is completed in 2015, the Ukrainian gas transit infrastructure will become almost obsolete and redundant. Ukraine will lose its economic leverage over Russia, and it will be forced to buy its gas on the same conditions as other European countries. If Ukraine refuses to pay (for example, right now Ukraine owes to Russia about $2 billion for previous gas deliveries), then Russia can simply close the taps, as any self-respecting gas exporter would do.

    So, in my estimation, after 2015 Ukraine will lose its importance as an "energy corridor", and I don't understand why Exxon and Chevron would be interested in the rusting Ukrainian gas pipes.

    LeftOrRightSameShite Nabaldashnik, 6 Mar 2014 6:26

    and I don't understand why Exxon and Chevron would be interested in the rusting Ukrainian gas pipes.

    They'll be interested in delivery infrastructure due to deals for drilling Ukrainian shale for gas and drilling for oil in the Black Sea.

    kawaiikiora Nabaldashnik, 7 Mar 2014 3:57

    Totally agree .. hope for Ukraine they can get some benefit out of their own gas fields and not have the IMF et al., rip them off. Somehow DOUBT it..

    No banker or Bruxelles technocrat is interested in having Ukraine join the PIGS gang. Sure Cypriot bank accounts have reasonable Ukraine savings..

    Kiev is basically on its own.

    Though Chinese have large agricultural holdings so perhaps a few billion yuan might flow from them..depending on drought and regular cereal output flowing to Beijing. Another Chinese rail line would help consolidate that deal...

    splodgeness, 6 Mar 2014 5:01

    The 'Independence' of Kosovo, and Camp Bondsteel 2008

    But there is an elephant in the room here, which the BBC and the western media avoid drawing attention to and that elephant is CAMP BONDSTEEL, the 360,000 sq. m. US military base built in Kosovo since the end of the Kosovo War in 1999 and which is not about to disappear any time soon.

    So why is this huge base sitting there in Kosovo, 9 years after the end of hostilities there? Its military commandant has been de facto the most important person in Kosovo since the US arrived in 1999. The independent Kosovo will in effect ensure the existence of an enormous US military presence in the Balkans for the foreseeable future. What is this about?

    It concerns two things: 1) the need via military forces placed not far away to keep a wary eye on the 2 new pipeleines which will be soon coming on stream bringing oil & gas to the West through the Balkans from Central Asia – 2 very different pipelines, and 2) the broader geostrategic struggle between Oceania (USUK & allies – EU + Canada, Anzac, Japan, pliant Mid-east Muslim states) and Eurasia (Russia, China, Iran). Between these two, and inclining already towards the former group,, is India. A major battlefield for the two groups' struggle for energy resources is going to be Africa. Needless to say, this is all insane, in terms of reality, but it is nevertheless happening, and untold mayhem, destruction and suffering will result from it – unless we wake up to it.

    continued:

    http://threeman.org/?p=387

    ThirstyHippo splodgeness, 6 Mar 2014 10:23

    So why is this huge base sitting there in Kosovo

    89 acres is huge for a building, not for a base.

    splodgeness ThirstyHippo, 6 Mar 2014 10:32

    Camp Bondsteel spreads over 955-acres (3.86km²).

    kawaiikiora splodgeness, 7 Mar 2014 3:49

    Great posting .. thanks. All to support AEGIS anti-missile encirclement and squeezing the Kremlin to the limit. Always wondered how much of the that surplus Afghan opium-heroin crop passes onto Russia and of course that cute little US Airbase in Kosovo (yet another well functioning democracy destined to join Bruxelles…).
    Who could one ask a) the Thai masseuses on the base itself or b) the NSA-CIA crowd ??
    Agree in western media CAMP BONDSTEEL is almost taboo…obvious why it is to kept that way. Insane = reality OR Their reality has nothing to do with your - my reality….

    konnel, 6 Mar 2014 8:48

    The article is good for pointing out the US stirred the pot and gave Russia the choice of either capitulating or acting. But it does massively over state the importance of the Ukraine for Europe's energy supplies. Ukraine is being bypassed by Russia and gas from the Caspian doesn't have to go through the Ukraine (if it did it would have to come from Russia anyway).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Stream

    http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9046884&contentId=7080518

    The US getting involved doesn't seem to be for any particular strategic reason but more liking poking the eye of Russia and trying to weaken it in any way it can.

    konnel konnel, 6 Mar 2014 8:58

    Any power play with the gas is really the opposite as what's being suggested. Russia may use the reliance of Ukraine - and other eastern European countries - on Russian gas to exert political influence. Gas will be used as a tool in political wrangling as opposed to the control of it being the end goal. Who controls the gas is being sorted out by the pipelines being built now, which aren't even mentioned in the article.

    kawaiikiora konnel, 7 Mar 2014 3:38

    Totally agree - the anti-missile AEGIS encirclement speaks for itself in potentially neutralising Russian nuke strategic strike back. Kremlin strategy planners must be feeling pretty nervous. Not being able to rely on much of their own military equipment and personnel does not help. US is playing hardball with a reasonable deck of cards...

    kawaiikiora Cricket Diane C Phillips, 7 Mar 2014 3:35

    Regret to inform you.. there is no CRICKET-fair play, humane behaviour in geopolitics. I also feel attracted to the people, culture and language of both Ukraine and Russia but the major geo-strategic -chess players and mega bankers have made their decisions and these will be realised with little concern for loss of life. We are plus 7 billion after all!!!

    Joe Tierney, 6 Mar 2014 13:39

    Truly expert and unbiased analysis!

    The Cold War I could have ended for good, if the West had refrained from the kind of greedy 'geopolitical triumphalism' that has been so evident from 1991 until today, in which it attempted to keep Russia profoundly weak in order that all its energy-related strategic assets - like Ukraine - could be cynically ripped out of its sphere of influence, as the author notes. So, in view of this short-sighted handling of its spoils of Cold War I victory, it thereby sowed the seeds of a future reemergence of the Cold War - that is what we are witnessing today.

    The salient question, in reviewing all this tremendously important history, is this: Who lost Russia?

    The answer should be evident. And it's important, because the West couldn't keep Russia in a weak and floundering state perpetually - it had to revive at some point, and it is now reviving, and it has a partner, too - China, which has its own deep Western-inflicted scars.

    So it's now The Cold War II, or more accurately, The Cold War, Act II. It arrives when the West is profoundly weakened financially, economically and militarily after too many war quagmires. It arrives when Western leaders are bankrupt intellectually, able only to master 'kid checkers' while Russia-China play expert chess. There is thus a distinct air of foreboding in the West, and this is why its leaders engage in such hypocritical and sharp (but hollow) language directed against Russia. The West loves a weak Russia, and detests and fears a strong Russia. All of this, and much more, Mr. Putin understands all too well.

    It's '1989-1991' for the West.

    TheSailor99, 6 Mar 2014 14:43

    The Ukraine is a pivitol tipping in the make up of the EU. A quick look at a map of Europe shows that if Ukraine goes into the EU then the eastern border would abut Russia all the way from the top of Scandinavia to the Black Sea with he exception of Belarus. No wonder Putin is not happy. Although the people are not rich they are hard working and intelligent and the country has a lot of resources including rich farm land and gas fields. They look at countries like Poland ans see that they immediately start to improve their lifestyles as part of the EU. If Ukraine has to lose Crimea then its not a bad deal because the rest of the people can get on with developing the country and their lives.

    nfnfnf, 6 Mar 2014 18:35

    Whether Ukraine will provide alternative routes helping to diversify access, as the West would prefer, or 'find itself forced to play the role of a Russian subsidiary,'

    I can't see how Ukraine is pivotal in controlling the oil and gas supplies. Yes, the gas pipelines transit Ukraine en route to europe, but they come from Russia first - Russia sells the gas and controls the supply. Ukraine is already transit country so how does it offer alternative routes? I suppose the Ukrainian authorities could shut down the pipelines but why would they do that? They would only anger russians and europeans alike.

    kawaiikiora nfnfnf
    7 Mar 2014 3:23

    1 2

    The Russians have the Northern pipeline, under Baltic to Germany fully operational and the Southern pipeline bypasses the Ukraine altogether will be on line by 2015. Ukraine gas field apparently will be sufficient for domestic demand but not export. Maybe even Norwegians new fields up north could increase their contribution to EU but Germany is the major consumer at 30%, manufactured goods exporter to Russia after China and even researching the utilisation of Arctic Methane gas. I reckon poor Ukranians (some of them) have been duped yet again...
    Report

    Venik
    6 Mar 2014 23:52
    5 6

    With support from the West, events in Ukraine were set in motion last year by the anti-government protesters in Kiev. The problem with revolutions is they don't stop at your convenience. The Ukrainian people have not cast a single vote for the country's self-proclaimed government. This, however, did not prevent the impostors in Kiev from overhauling the constitution and making sweeping changes to the country's foreign and socioeconomic policies. "Provisional" is diplomatic speak for "unconstitutional".

    Crimean autonomy has the legal right and moral obligation to decide its own fate. The people of Crimea must be given the opportunity to cast their votes and to choose their own destiny. Kiev politicians and their foreign backers have no right to lecture the Crimeans about democratic values or the fine points of Ukrainian law - not after hat they did in Kiev. Why are Americans and Europeans suddenly appear so afraid of democratic processes in Ukraine? Because they no longer control the outcome.

    Crimea must hold the referendum and find its own path forward.
    Report

    kawaiikiora Venik
    7 Mar 2014 3:18

    1 2

    Holding my breath and full of optimism .. but global strategy chess games take precedence over any humanistic point of view.. SADLY and inevitably...
    Report

    kawaiikiora
    7 Mar 2014 2:41
    5 6

    US Game plan & AEGIS encirclement..Think Geostrategic.

    Is it possible my previous posting was removed…dear Guardian!!!

    From Kremlin´s point of view they will do all they can to avoid:
    1) any reductions on the quantity and type of naval movements from Crimea and. St Petersburg, Murmansk and Vladivostock are their only other options - which are far from ideal..
    2) the possibility of US-NATO placing ground or sea based AEGIS anti-missile systems in the Ukraine and further weakening the Russian nuke strike capability.
    Romania by 2015 will have 2 ground based US AEGIS systems, anti-missile systems, and how close will these be to the Ukraine border!!?? In the event of a real conflict scenario these could be moved 400-500km within the Ukraine.

    The Russians are feeling pretty much encircled by US and NATO - AEGIS anti -missile systems with 2 US ships in Spain 2013, next Poland and so on..Theoretically the completed AEGIS encirclement could greatly reduce Russian strategic missile strike ability.
    Mutual deterrent blahbah…etc., US holds ALL the cards.
    Give the Russians a break!! - apparently they just have one lousy sub in the Crimea. Their other nuke subs are no longer on month long patrols -quality is lousy, frequent accidents and poor morale - training.
    The USA and NATO have overwhelming superiority for missile equipped nuke subs etc,and most other areas of offensive weapons.
    Add a few Israeli Jericho 3 missiles for good measure.
    Supposedly the US-Israeli STUXNET virus/Trojan has already penetrated certain civilian Russian utilities etc.,US has plus 600 military bases overseas. And Russia -- 2 --I think..
    Ever heard of the Cuban missile crisis!!!
    At the same time USA had Thor missiles placed in Turkey right up the Soviet posterior aperture.
    How many Russian or Chinese anti-missile systems or nuke subs are along the Mexican . Canadian border or off the coast.???

    As for crucial position of Ukraine and the gas !!! Invalid. Northern pipeline is delivering gas to German and Southern Pipeline will be finished by 2015 - Ukraine is no longer needed. German business community is the largest trader with Russia after China - so NO effective sanctions.
    Yet again poor Ukranians have been duped, misled and ripped off by their own lousy politicians, EU flatulence and posturing, together with psychopath John McCain with Ms. Ignoramus Nuland and her `F… the EU` supporting the so-called democratisation process with 5 billion dollars.

    [May 24, 2015]Problems he face are becoming less and less managable for the Chocolate King

    tasnimnews.com

    ...Now Poroshenko clearly understands that his country plays virtually no role, neither in the EU nor NATO. Meanwhile, it becomes clear the future of the Eurozone. So far as the state is not able to become an EU member, the prospect of accession to EU and adopting common currency is very elusive. In other words, Western countries have excommunicated Ukraine from all associations to which she had once dreamed of entering.

    The fact is that the West is using Ukraine for their own geostrategic purposes, and the events taking place in this country, created great economic hardships for Ukrainian people, hardships that increase with each day. Flirting by opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and the European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, the conflict with Russia, the growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and the reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU. In other words, the cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with the two organizations turned into a complete fiasco.

    In such conditions Poroshenko should be extremely concerned about his future and the future of his government. It is quite obvious that in the event of any military conflict between Russia and Ukraine NATO command, not having taken any formal obligations in respect of Kiev, will not directly participate. They will only watch the fall of Kiev from the sidelines. By the way, exactly the same thing happened in Georgia in 2008.

    Then Mikhail Saakashvili stated that in the event of a military conflict between Moscow and Tbilisi, NATO members will immediately defend Georgia. During the clashes, the representatives of the Alliance really has condemned Russia's position, however, refrained from starting a direct confrontation with her. In the end, Saakashvili raised the white flag, admitting complete defeat in the Ossetian front.

    If we return to the situation in Ukraine, we can say that now Poroshenko has lost the ability even in the slightest degree to analyze the events occurring in his country. Aggravates the current situation is that the White House and NATO have exploited weak Ukrainian government. The fact that the West is using Ukraine for their own purposes, and the events taking place in this country, created the conditions for Kiev to dteriarate ecomonically and politically with weach day.

    To date, the results of flirting opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and the European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, led to the conflict with Russia, the growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and the alarming reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU. The cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with those two organizations turned into a complete fiasco.

    [May 23, 2015] Ukraines Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

    Notable quotes:
    "... 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. ..."
    Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

    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.

    [May 23, 2015] George W. Bush didnt just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

    May 20, 2015 | theweek.com

    None of the conservatives running for president want to be associated with the last Republican president - not even his brother (for whom stepping away is rather complicated). After all, George W. Bush left office with an approval rating hovering in the low 30s, and his grandest project was the gigantic catastrophe of the Iraq War, which we're still dealing with and still debating. If you're a Republican right now you're no doubt wishing we could talk about something else, but failing that, you'd like the issue framed in a particular way: The war was an honest mistake, nobody lied to the public, and anything bad that's happening now is Barack Obama's fault.

    For the moment I want to focus on the part about the lies. I've found over the years that conservatives who supported the war get particularly angry at the assertion that Bush lied us into war. No, they'll insist, it wasn't his fault: There was mistaken intelligence, he took that intelligence in good faith, and presented what he believed to be true at the time. It's the George Costanza defense: It's not a lie if you believe it.

    Here's the problem, though. It might be possible, with some incredibly narrow definition of the word "lie," to say that Bush told only a few outright lies on Iraq. Most of what he said in order to sell the public on the war could be said to have some basis in something somebody thought or something somebody alleged (Bush was slightly more careful than Dick Cheney, who lied without hesitation or remorse). But if we reduce the question of Bush's guilt and responsibility to how many lies we can count, we miss the bigger picture.

    What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

    That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's what was truly diabolical about their campaign.

    And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."

    In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.

    And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)

    Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush gave on September 28, 2002:

    The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.

    What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted, seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's sales job.

    The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted - supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter - and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.

    This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death, that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.

    And it worked.

    [May 23, 2015] MICHAEL HAYDEN The chasm between the security agencies and the Obama administration -

    May 20, 2015 | Washington Times

    One way of looking at the federal government is that part of it is permanent and another part of it is transient. The transient government comprises those elected officials and political appointees who change when administrations change.

    There are exceptions (like Bob Gates staying on at Defense), but presidents work hard to fill as many positions as the law allows with folks beholden, loyal and like-minded. After all, elections matter and these political appointees reflect that constitutional process.


    SEE ALSO: Obama's Islamic State strategy 'needs to be changed,' ex-Pentagon chief Gates says


    There are limits, of course, some in law because of 19th-century civil service reforms and others out of practical considerations. In early 2009 President Obama changed out Mike McConnell as director of national intelligence and me as CIA director, but he personally intervened to keep Steve Kappes on as deputy CIA director at Langley. And, as per tradition, he made no other changes in the intelligence community.

    Both permanent and transient elements contribute to the policy process. The permanent government brings with it fact-based expertise and experience, both of which are virtues unless they become so dominant as to foster stagnation. The transient folks bring a political legitimacy along with a vision and energy for change that stimulates progress unless they become so obsessive that it fosters recklessness.

    There is a clear tension, but the tension can be creative. With ambiguous information and split counsel, presidents can be bold without being reckless, informed without being captured by expertise, as happened in both 2011's Abbottabad raid and 2007's Iraq surge.

    ... ... ...

    Gen. Michael Hayden is a former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency. He can be reached at [email protected].

    SEE ALSO: Marine Gen. James Mattis' assessment of Obama: U.S. suffering 'strategic atrophy'


    Now in its seventh year, it might be good to take a look at some key decisions of the Obama administration through the lens of this distinction. It could be especially illuminating since this president is known to keep his own counsel and his administration has earned a reputation as being insular and controlling at the expense of Cabinet officials (who more tend to represent the views of the permanent government).

    Out of the gate, two days after the inauguration, the president promised to empty Guantanamo within a year. I was still in government at the time and we all supported the concept of reducing the prisoner population. We already had released hundreds. But IF WE HAD BEEN ASKED, we would have pushed back on the 12-month timeline as creating pressure to make bad decisions on releases - which the permanent government was duty-bound to oppose, as it has and as it continues to try to do.

    There may have been some of that same dynamic at work five years later with the Bergdahl swap for five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo. The political imperatives to clean up the Afghan battlefield (no man left behind) before the administration's self-imposed clock ran out and to reduce the population at Guantanamo led to an incredibly awkward Rose Garden ceremony with the Bergdahl family, administration characterizations that a deserter had served with "honor and distinction," and a new precedent of negotiating with terrorists that the permanent government would have to live with.

    The administration routinely has shown itself to be fond of timelines, the better (I suppose) to enforce and police the implementation of decisions. Hence, withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan were on the clock rather than being conditions-based, the approach that would have been supported by the permanent government. Playing to the shot clock led to near disaster in Iraq (and a return of U.S. forces) and threatened to do the same in Afghanistan until withdrawals of troops were pushed to the right.

    In Libya the president decided to go to war (although he later overruled DOD and directed it not be called a war to avoid triggering the War Powers Act) to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, a decision opposed by some National Security Council members. It took seven months, but Gadhafi was killed, his government destroyed, local tribes empowered and Libya descended into chaos.

    Despite accurate predictions that - absent massive post-Gadhafi attention and involvement (and maybe even with it) - Libya would become a failed state, "leading from behind" ensured that not even the heroic efforts of a murdered American ambassador could forestall a terrorist arms depot and safe haven.

    The ambassador was killed, by the way, despite repeated requests for increased security within the permanent government that went nowhere with an administration set on "normalizing" its diplomatic footprint in Libya and then later trying to exonerate itself with a story that "the video made them do it." I know of no one currently or previously in the permanent government who thought that Ambassador Susan E. Rice's Sunday morning talking points could stand for very long.

    The permanent government has been posting alarms elsewhere. Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn has made it clear that at least his corner of the American intelligence community did not believe that al Qaeda was on the run, that the tide of war was receding or that the Islamic State was the "JV team."

    Back when the Syrian battlefield was more malleable and limited force could still achieve something, the president rejected counsel coming from his intelligence and security communities to act. Acting even then was a risky course and success was not guaranteed, but it's hard to imagine a scenario worse than the one in which we find ourselves now, with a terrorist state the size of Belgium straddling the ancient trade routes of the Middle East.

    [May 23, 2015]Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria embark on gas pipeline project

    May 22, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, May 22, 2015 at 12:24 pm
    euractiv: Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria embark on gas pipeline project
    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/slovakia-hungary-romania-and-bulgaria-embark-gas-pipeline-project-314793

    At the Riga summit yesterday (21 May) Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania signed a Joint Declaration backing the idea of building the Eastring gas pipeline, designed to link Central with Southeastern Europe. However the name Eastring doesn't appear in the document…

    ..Eastring is a proposed pipeline, a version of which is 832 kilometres long, and runs across Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, while another version is 1274 kilometres long, and reaches Bulgaria.

    One of its advantages is that Eastring uses the existing infrastructure of Eustream on Slovak territory, which was completely renovated after the 2009 gas crisis.

    It is designed to transport gas in both directions, with a capacity of 20 billion cubic metres a year (bcm/y) at the first stage and 40 bcm/y at the final stage. Potential gas sources for forward flows are Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Cyprus and Russia, while for the reverse flow, it is gas from Western European hubs.

    The optimistic target date for building the first stage of the pipeline is 2018…
    ####

    Who's paying for it?

    kat kan, May 22, 2015 at 1:41 pm
    I think Hungary was already started on South Stream, before Bulgaria got trodden on to pull out of their end.

    In theory Turk Stream can be slightly redesigned to terminate in Bulgaria instead of Greece but…. Russia has likely promised this and other help to Greece, and won't want to let them down to benefit Bulgaria, which was weak enough to cancel South Stream. Russia did say though that Bulgaria could get a spur line for their own needs. .But one current plan also goes through Macedonia, and that route is a powerful shove to make them agree with Greece about the name.

    Anyway having 4 EU countries agree on something the EU is against is a big first.

    The only likely reverse flow customer is Ukraine, whose credit rating would not inspire me to spend a few billion to serve just them.

    [May 23, 2015] Porky and Yats repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, and with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which Ukraine owes billions

    "...And don't forget folks: Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev "government" repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and has invaded its eastern territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands. And with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which previously supplied Russian natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions."
    "...Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident,"
    Moscow Exile, May 23, 2015 at 6:50 am
    Ukraine asks to extend discount on Russian gas by end of year

    And don't forget folks: Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev "government" repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and has invaded its eastern territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands.

    And with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which previously supplied Russian natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions.

    Some aggressor!

    Moscow Exile, May 23, 2015 at 6:55 am

    They need a decent English proofreader: "by the end of the year" means a discount extension should be agreed upon before this year ends.

    What the RT headline should is, I suspect: "Ukraine asks to extend discount on Russian gas up to the end of the year", meaning they want their present discount extended up to and including 31 December 2015.

    Moscow Exile, May 23, 2015 at 7:19 am

    Remember the "Are Slavs Stupid" thread of a while back?

    I'm seriously beginning to believe that Ukrainians are, or at least many of their public figures are, in that they consistently make contradictory statements in almost the same breath, which might indicate that they have a very short memory span (surely a sign of being slow witted) or that they are so stupid not to recognize that the clear stupidity of their contradictory statements must surely be recognized by most people who are in possession of a normal intellect.

    Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident, e.g. the statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …" was composed by slaveowners almost to a man, in that several of the Founding Fathers of the USA were in possession of hundreds of human beings that were listed in their account books as personal property and worked for them as slaves, namely George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry were all slave-owners. And Hilary Clinton "misspoke" when saying publicly that she had been fired upon by a sniper when arriving at Belgrade airport with her daughter; not forgetting the US lies concerning Iran and Iraq, of course, and the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana; and the role of the US Marine Corps in maintaining "freedom and Democracy" for the benefit of United Fruit and Wall St. in Central and Southern America, as revealed by General Smedly Butler …

    [May 20, 2015] Russia to take legal moves if Ukraine defaults on $3bn debt - finance minister

    Notable quotes:
    "... "unscrupulous" ..."
    "... "Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default, and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment through EU programs," ..."
    "... "It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," ..."
    May 20, 2015 | RT Business
    Russia will appeal to the International Court of Justice if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signs a moratorium on the payment of Ukraine's external debt into law and fails to pay its debt to Russia, said Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov.

    Siluanov said Ukraine was virtually defaulting on its debt, adding that Russia doesn't yet have grounds to lodge any claims. If Kiev fails to pay $75 million in June, Moscow will use its right to appeal to the court, the Minister said.

    The Ukrainian parliament has adopted a law allowing the country not to pay foreign debt to private lenders, saying it needs to protect the ailing economy and people from "unscrupulous" creditors.

    The bill says the $3 billion in Ukrainian Eurobonds purchased by Russia at the end of 2013 are on the list of liabilities subject to a possible payment moratorium.

    Experts agree that Tuesday vote meant a technical default for the country and would impede Ukraine's ability to raise private investment from the EU and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), a European source told TASS on Wednesday.

    "Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default, and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment through EU programs," the source said.

    As part of the underpinning of Kiev's bailout plan, the International Monetary Fund said in March that Russia would not receive the $3 billion bond repayment from Ukraine this year.

    IMF is looking for cooperation from creditors to accept a restructuring on Kiev's debt. That includes Russia.

    "It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," said Charles Blitzer of Blitzer Consulting and a former IMF staff member.

    Read more Ukraine passes bill allowing moratorium on foreign debt payments

    [May 17, 2015] Ukraine Recession Deepens as GDP Falls 17.6%

    Poor Ukrainian citizens got back to 90th instead of EU...
    Notable quotes:
    "... and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. ..."
    May 15, 2015 | NASDAQ.com

    The contraction in Ukraine's economy accelerated to 17.6% in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, the State Statistics Service said Friday, hammered by a conflict with Russia-backed separatists in its eastern industrial heartland that has slashed industrial output.

    Gross domestic product for the period slid 6.5% from the final quarter of 2014, the agency said. Ukraine reached a cease-fire deal with the separatists in February that has reduced--but not ended--fighting. Talks over a longer-term political resolution to the conflict have stalled with each side blaming the other.

    The contraction was "a little bit worse than we estimated," according to Olena Bilan, chief economist at Dragon Capital brokerage. She said the economy had also been damaged by shrinking domestic consumption after the country's currency collapsed and inflation shot up. Retail spending was down 31% in March compared with the same month last year, according to Dragon Capital.

    Still, analysts said the contraction in the last quarter is likely to be the worst for the year, as the economy's plunge began last summer as fighting picked up. Ukraine's government has forecast a 5.5% contraction this year, but the World Bank said last month that Ukraine's economy would shrink by 7.5%.

    "In certain sectors are showing that the economy is testing the bottom," said Alexander Valchyshen, head of research at ICU investment firm, citing transportation and agriculture as examples of industries experiencing a turnaround. " Going forward I think the stronger decline we are having in the first quarter, the stronger rebound in the second half of the year, because last year it was the second half of the year when we started registering the collapse."

    See also

    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:45 am
    http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/gdp-decline-in-ukraine-accelerates-to-176-percent-in-q1-2015-statistics-388663.html

    So Ukraine's GDP drop in 2015 is likely going to be over 20%. I recall Moody's, etc forecasting a GDP drop of 2% for Ukraine and 6% for Russia. The 2% figure actually is looking more realistic for Russia this year and is total BS if applied to Ukraine.

    PaulR, May 16, 2015 at 9:49 am
    That's quite a fall. Inflation is now almost 61%. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/inflation-cpi
    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 11:54 am
    These numbers are full on depression ones. The USA's GDP went down 25% during the Great Depression. I see Ukraine going down 30% and Ukraine was not doing so well before this disaster started.
    Hunter, May 16, 2015 at 7:14 am
    Hey all, very interesting discussions.

    Nice article Mark.

    I have an observation though and a question:

    First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship with Russia.

    I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe (I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset Russophobia in many parts of Europe.

    ... ... ...

    [May 17, 2015] Nuland to Visit Moscow for Ukraine Talks

    Is this about some kind of compromise ?
    May 17, 2015 | Sputnik International

    Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland will visit Moscow on May 17 and 18 to discuss the implementation of the Minsk peace agreements on Ukraine, the US State Department said in a statement Sunday.

    During her visit, Nuland will meet with senior Russian government officials and civil society representatives. In addition to the Ukraine peace process, she is set to discuss bilateral US-Russian issues.

    Relations between Russia and the United States have soured over the last year amid the situation in Ukraine. Washington has accused Moscow of meddling in the armed conflict in Ukraine's southeast, a claim repeatedly denied by the Russian side.

    After numerous breaches of a previous ceasefire agreement, signed in September 2014 in Minsk, Ukraine's warring sides signed a new truce deal in mid-February.

    The new agreement was outlined during lengthy talks between the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany, who met in the Belarusian capital in a bid to find a solution to the Ukraine crisis.

    [May 17, 2015] Rumor mill about coming Yats demise

    yalensis, May 17, 2015 at 11:25 am

    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.

    [May 17, 2015]US Empire: American Exceptionalism Is No Shining City On a Hill

    May 15, 2015 | informationclearinghouse.info

    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.

    [May 17, 2015] Telegraph presstitutes are full of it

    And the Telegraph still has this story, no corrections having been made since it appeared on May 7:
    .
    How not to park a tank: Russian soldiers struggle to load armoured vehicle onto truck
    .
    And it's the same place, the same self-propelled howitzer and the same Yukie knobheads as in the clip on the Russian web, which is clearly titled (in Russian): Ukrainian army unsuccessfully loading a self-propelled artillery unit onto a flat-back truck.
    Hunter, May 16, 2015 at 7:14 am

    Hey all, very interesting discussions.

    Nice article Mark.

    I have an observation though and a question:

    First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship with Russia.

    I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe (I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset Russophobia in many parts of Europe.

    Secondly the question, With regards to the video (which is on the Telegraph website by the way, not the Daily Fail/Mail) you said that just behind the three guys watching at the moment the artillery piece falls off the truck there is an oil drum with a Ukrainian flag standing in it. At around that moment there are I believe two groups of three guys watching the loading operation. One group closer to the camera man and another group farther away. Is it the group that is farther away that you are referring to? Because the clip ends pretty quickly after the artillery piece topples from the truck and I haven't spotted the oil drum with the flag yet (by the way, how does anyone spot anything in that video? The quality is pretty poor). Is there any possibility of doing a screenshot of the moment you are referring to?

    Moscow Exile,

    The oil drum is further along the road in the upper left distance and beyond three men, who are standing middle-distance, left-centre.

    The blue and yellow Ukraine flag is visible through the foliage of trees that line the road to the left. Locate the oil drum, and above it you will catch glimpses of the flag.

    The flag is visible between 00:00 and 0018, after which time the camera zooms in to the flatbed truck upon which the men are attempting to load a self-propelled howitzer, not a tank..

    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 8:03 am
    You cannot see the flag on the Telegraph clip.
    marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 10:04 am
    Coincidentally, I'm sure. It's not as if they knew it was there, and edited it out.
    marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:58 am
    Hi, Hunter; thanks! Yes, the flag is hard to see even in the best of clips, you can just catch it for a second or two as it flutters, but it is definitely the Ukrainian flag. Sorry I messed up the newspapers, it seems no matter how carefully I research, I always get something wrong. However, I would put the Daily Mail and the Telegraph roughly equal in their penchant for disinformation.

    I see Moscow Exile has provided guidance, and the information comes from his original assessment anyway; the men are also identified as part of a Ukrainian unit in other information which appeared with the clip they used as a source.

    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 8:38 am
    It's at 00:27 where the flag goes off the shot and where the cameraman's finger can be seen.

    And there are not three men to the left, there are four (I think): one appears from behind of one of the other three.

    Here's the clip as it appears on the Russian web:

    And it says in Russian:

    ВСУ неудачная погрузка САУ на трал ЖЕСТЬ

    ВСУ = Ukraine Armed Forces

    САУ = self-propelled artillery unit

    Drutten May 16, 2015 at 9:04 am
    Yes, that's a Ukrainian flag alright, and the self-propelled gun is a 2S3 Akatsiya conspicuously painted in Ukrainian "ATO" colors at that.
    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 9:17 am
    And the Telegraph still has this story, no corrections having been made since it appeared on May 7:

    How not to park a tank: Russian soldiers struggle to load armoured vehicle onto truck

    And it's the same place, the same self-propelled howitzer and the same Yukie knobheads as in the clip on the Russian web, which is clearly titled (in Russian): Ukrainian army unsuccessfully loading a self-propelled artillery unit onto a flat-back truck.

    Here's the Telegraph frozen frame from the clip above it, which has the first 20 seconds or so that is on the original removed, during which time the flag can be seen. And, of course, the Russian title of the clip has been removed:

    All of which points out to me, at least, that this is not a gaffe by the Telegraph, where nobody can read, let alone speak Russian: the deceitful bastards knew what they were doing.

    james, May 16, 2015 at 10:20 am
    wonder who will point it out to them and if they ever make a public retraction? i doubt it..tells one all they need to know about the telegraph if so..
    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 10:29 am
    I checked: no readers' comments.

    I checked when the story first appeared in the DT.

    Drutten, May 16, 2015 at 8:59 am
    Roland Oliphant, the man behind one (or several?) "Russian invasion!" scoops in Ukraine (and who later couldn't back anything up) has apparently authored this fantastic article for the Telegraph:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html

    Words fail me… The article purports to show "Russian incursions" into "NATO airspace" and yet all it does is to show a number of Russian exercise flights in international airspace (i.e. no "incursions" whatsoever). It also shows few random submarine-related events, none of which have been proven to be about Russia by anybody (and several are actually entirely unconfirmed, and in a few of them the relevant authorities have actually stressed that no nationality can be determined). Oh, and it shows a few Russian ships transiting international waters off Britain, just like all other navies of the world do.

    The map also contains an outline claiming to show "UK airspace" that is seemingly entirely made-up. It doesn't correspond to actual British airspace, it doesn't correspond to territorial water boundaries, it doesn't even correspond to the extended "exclusive economic zone" (which stretches into international waters and as such is free to sail in for anybody).

    james, May 16, 2015 at 10:22 am
    sustained propaganda war on the part of the telegraph… hopefully someone calls bullshit on their work…
    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 12:31 pm
    An insight into the mindset of certain Telegraph readers, albeit that several have commented that Oliphant wrote nonsense about "NATO airspace" and that the MoD quietly concedes that no violation by the Russian armed forces of UK/EU – NATO? – territorial waters and/or airspace has taken place, as voiced in this readers's letter:

    What a garbled piece of drivel this article is!

    Suspected incursions into Nato airspace? So Nato have now invaded and own international airspace?

    Not once have any Russian aircraft infringed UK airspace – grudgingly confirmed by the MoD
    .
    The submarine activity. The actual national identity of these submarines is suspected, never ever proven. Sheer speculation to ratchet-up the propaganda.

    If the DT are going to produce these primary school drawings – why not detail Nato flights and submarine activity close to Russian territorial limits.

    General Gerasimov (Chief of the General Staff) recently complained over increased Nato activity around his country – yet this doesn't even get a mention!

    Enter idiot, who responds thus:

    Well presumably the good General is free to complain in the Moscow Times about the NATO activities, and their comment thread is likewise full of people with dodgy Google translate skills, defending the practice and b*tching about ratcheting up propaganda. As is the case here; the DT runs a story, lots of posters dog-pile in and a pleasant few hour of discussion is had by all. What's not to like?

    The blithering ignoramus clearly thinks that the Moscow Times is a Russian newspaper of importance and which enjoys a sizable readership, whereas, in fact, it has no importance whatsoever for Russian society and that the last thing the Russian COGS would do would be to voice in that worthless propaganda rag his concern over any perceived NATO violation of Russian sovereignty.

    Furthermore, the Telegraph dolt seems unaware of the fact that readers' comments to MT stopped quite a while ago. It is interesting, therefore, that he talks of the MT comment thread being "full of people with dodgy Google translate skills" who use MT to spout propaganda for the Empire of Evil.

    Does the idiot really believe that Putinbots write to MT to further the Evil One's cause?

    And these dodgy language skills that the commenter sneeringly accuses his imagined MT Putinbots of and which force the Kremlin trolls to use Google Translate? I take it then that the sneering piece of shit that wrote that Telegraph comment speaks Russian fluently and has no need of dictionaries or machine translation programmes.

    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 9:05 am
    Can you see the flag?

    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 9:09 am
    There is a double white stripe on the Acatsiya. It is Kiev regime equipment.
    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:16 pm
    The Ukrainian flag is on the left on the oil drum, below the tree, and just to the left of the man.
    I saw this clip before, it is pretty clearly Ukie troops and equipment.
    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:18 pm
    P.S. – even if it were Russian, it wouldn't prove anything, except that some guys are idiots.
    Since it is Ukies, it STILL doesn't prove anything, except that some guys are idiots.
    And that some newspapers are highly dishonest.
    marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 6:18 pm
    It is the latter that is most telling to me, and it suggests they just looked around until they found something in Cyrillic that had people acting stupidly, and punched it out there as Russians fucking up as usual.

    [May 15, 2015] The west talks about a new cold war. For Russians it has already started

    This article is definitely a deviation from the regular NN/TGA crap Guardian runs. While this Guardian pressitute tried to pretend that she is not a regular neocon hawk, the standard "MI5" working set of lies is used. Quote: Look at the people (think tanks) around Masha Gessen en Dawisha. The figure of $70-200 billion also comes from them. " The author failed to stay away from the silly and sometimes cold war era rhetoric. "Empire", "insecurity", "damaged ego," "feeling excluded." That's a stupid thing to say about the nation.
    May 14, 2015 | The Guardian

    The west talks about a new cold war. For Russians it has already started. By continually freezing out the Kremlin, the west is refuelling old resentments ...

    I've been travelling in the heartlands of Russia for 30 years, witnessing everything from the euphoric wishfulness at the fall of communism to prosperity and, more recently, political despair. Yet going there for the first time since the annexation of Crimea, I was still shocked by what I saw.

    I encountered a country braced not for some frozen conflict, nor for proxy war, but for the real thing: all-out war against the west. Never have my friends been more loving – but this time it was the concern of people who were unsure when and how we would meet again.

    It is true that this state of mind has been brought about by the Kremlin's unremitting media campaign of the past year. But I quickly came to understand that most of them share their government's dim view of the west, with its "hollow concepts" of democracy and freedom.

    Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back, a major conflict really does seem possible. Russian aircraft and submarines are playing war games around the coasts of Europe. But a plane crossing into Baltic air space could trigger Nato retaliation with conventional arms, which could in turn could spark a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Russia – a strategic response born of a fear of weakness in the face of superior American military power.

    ... ... ...

    How have we drifted into this absurd and dangerous situation? At the end of the cold war the Russians imagined that they would be becoming part of an expanded Europe. Instead, through a combination of triumphalism and ignorance we have played to Russia's ancient fears of exclusion and victimhood.

    The conventional view in the west is that the blame lies with Putin and his kleptocratic regime. According to this narrative, the regime went into attack mode after the oil price collapsed. It distracted attention from its own failure to diversify the economy by lashing out against an external enemy, and launching a brilliant propaganda campaign.

    This version of events, while not untrue, lets the west off the hook far too easily. When the Soviet regime ended, free-market thinking was in the ascendancy in the west. People in positions of authority really did swallow the idea that we were living through "the end of history": that in a unipolar world foreign policy was going to be exclusively about a battle for markets.

    In America and Britain, government support for research on old Soviet bloc countries was slashed. The State Department and Foreign Office disbanded research units that kept politicians informed. Embassies focused on opening up commercial opportunities. Meanwhile, the press, facing its own economic crisis, also cut back on foreign correspondents. The west simply stopped thinking seriously, and in depth, about Russia and its neighbours.

    And yet when it came to defence we did not behave as though we were facing the end of history. Rather than disbanding our cold war defence arrangement, Nato, we reinvented it as an alliance that could be construed only as being arrayed against Russia. We kept expanding it ever eastward, closer to Russia's borders. In response, Russia turned aggressive – first in Georgia, then in Crimea and Ukraine – at this intrusion into its sphere of influence.

    The west dismissed this, saying the concept of spheres of influence belonged to a bygone age. But geography is unchanging, as are the sensibilities created by it. US policy on Cuba in the post-Soviet era has, until now, been founded on precisely this principle. Cuba had long-since ceased to pose a military threat to the US. But it was deemed outrageous that any nation so close to US borders should cleave to a "hostile" ideological allegiance.

    The end of the cold war has not changed history either. History continues to inform identity, as it always has. Take Ukraine: Kiev really is the birthplace of the Russian nation. This matters, just as it still matters that America's founding fathers came from Britain.

    Russia's sense of its identity, poised on the edge of Europe in a borderless landmass, has always been pathologically insecure. Identities are tangled, allegiances split. Take Donbas, for example, at the heart of the conflict area. This is the homeland of the Don Cossacks, whose cavalry regiments famously served Russia's tsars for generations. During the Soviet period, the Cossacks were greatly persecuted for their Tsarist allegiances. But the region was also the birthplace of that icon of Soviet labour, Alexei Stakhanov, who mined 227 tonnes of coal in a single shift. Stakhanov was the poster boy for a heroic generation of Soviet labour, all based in Donbas. In this region of conflicted allegiances, it is hardly surprising that the Kremlin has been fighting its propaganda war with particular intensity here.

    The decision by western leaders to boycott Russia's 70th anniversary victory parade on Saturday might have seemed like common sense in the light of events on Ukraine's border. But it failed to recognize how emotive a concept fascism still is for Russians. Westerners have for years been giggling at 'Allo 'Allo and John Cleese's goosestep, but fascism is no laughing matter in this country. Russians ask me how in Lithuania marches can be permitted that honour Nazi collaborators who murdered 200,000 Jews. How, they ask, can the west welcome into the EU and Nato "ethnocracies" such as Estonia and Latvia that radically discriminate against their Russian subjects.

    The 62% popular support which Vladimir Putin enjoys according to the Levada Centre reflects not only that ancient geographical sense of insecurity Russians feel; not just the unshakeable love Russians feel for their country. It represents wounded pride at the west's apparent determination to treat Russia as the enemy. Continued western sanctions will only fuel his popularity. Because Putin is a merely a symptom of the present crisis. There is more to Russia than Putin, a great deal more.

    ... ... ...

    stonedage 15 May 2015 12:54

    Putin announced that he would take a salary cut of 10% this year; but since estimates of his true, shadowy wealth range between $70bn and $200bn, it is unlikely he'll feel the pinch

    The western press keeps repeating this line with absolutely no proof. If Putin is this rich, why isn't he spending the money? Why isn't his children? It's illogical for someone to hoard this amount of wealth without spending lavishly. Is he trying to pass the money down to his family? The lying western press wants us to believe something so preposterous without offering a single proof, yet they don't write about the corrupt leaders like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair....who are gladly hoarding blood money and pimping it out on young women. Please tell me how the Clinton's went from being a broke ex president to amassing over 200 million within a decade.....Mr. Blair has done the same and I know Obama can't wait to cash in.

    Me109BfG6 15 May 2015 11:35

    "...It is true that this state of m i n d has been brought about by the Kremlin's unremitting media campaign of the past year. But I quickly came to understand that most of them share their government's dim view of the west, with its "hollow concepts" of democracy and freedom..."

    I can see a throng of Russian visitors invading these pages permanently. However, I can't see any reason to do so. The Russians do have a great science that launched the first ever satellite in 1957, the true, real European science that is never reachable to the Anglo-Saxons with their exclusive empiricism as the only principle of science. The Russians are great in culture generally. Schopenhauer suggested once to prove the greatness of a nation by comparing their composers, as their most abstract job is of the greatest value compared. Well, here after finding the names of a certain Mr Purcell along with Mr Britten we would have to make a stop rather than to mention the Beatles who brought up 20 billions of pounds to the British crown.

    Not that in Russia, with a multitude of composers ranging from Scriabin, Prokofiev, and Rakhmaninov up to Shostakovitch and Schnittke in the 20th century only. Now, concluding, just think that a Brit applying his / her 'mind' is not aware of the true sense of this word, which has ever been given by Kant in his "Verstand"= рассудок und "Vernunft"= разум, while an ordinary Russian is also aware of a mere ум. How can such a British "mind" be criticizing, say, the Dialectical Materialism?! - Nothing to mention of the Russian ballet school, also not reachable.

    So, the Russians are great and not reachable, as seen from the outside, alas.

    Dannycraig007 15 May 2015 10:56

    This Reuters article I have linked here shows the US is possibly throwing their Ukrainian Nazis under the bus. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/14/putin-ties-ukraines-government-to-neo-nazis-a-new-law-seems-to-back-him-up/

    This is major.

    1. It's Reuters which is the US lead news organization.
    2. It's Josh Cohen who gets major coverage in the US, he's also one of the main USAID reps.
    3. It clearly points out Putin was right and vindicates him.
    4. It clearly points out the WW2 Ukrainian Insurgent army killed 80,000 Poles.
    5. It talks about the current law to make the Nazi supporters honored.
    6. It points out the Right Sector led Maidan.
    7. It mentions the Ministerial positions of the fascists.
    8. It mentions 'Cyberspace" which mean we are winning this information war.
    9. It points out that the Nazis have been given free reign to commit atrocities.

    All these things have been covered up in the US media until now. This article most likely means that after the meeting in Sochi with Kerry and Lavrov that the US has decided to throw their Nazis under the bus as it is too difficult to hide them any longer and they are proving to be a liability at this point.

    Юля Пашковская -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 10:53

    Sorry. Whose interests are protecting Britain in Afghanistan and Iraq?

    Alexander Ilichev -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 10:49

    Basically this double standards problem and hypocrisy goes a long way before global politics. All countries and men proclaiming their will for good always and really believe this, but when it comes to their needs they will fight for it with low morality and fake moral reasons. Question who of them is self deluded still. If someone from US, UK or Russia believes only in good part of himself he is part of this problem.

    Though comparing Russia and NATO actions from the point of morality for past decades it seems most obviously who is the real aggressor here.

    Alexander Ilichev -> jezzam 15 May 2015 10:35

    And it's not equally illegal. Even not close to that. There are millions of Russian people living in Ukraine and Kiev just started bombing them after they rioted as well as Maidan protest made that 4 months before. Is it ok for you too?

    BTW, if Iraq is considered illegal was your country reprimanded for it like you reprimanding Russia now? Can you sanction yourself maybe?

    Alexander Ilichev -> jezzam 15 May 2015 10:32

    Iraq? How about Serbia, Syria, Lebanon? Is it ok for you? There are hundreds of thousands of dead civilians caused by your government.

    ANd it's not the matter how disastrous was it for Russia, what is matter how is it for local people of Ukraine, Iraq or any other country.

    During Ukraine conflict only 3-5 thousands civilians died and degree of RUssian government involvement in it is still under question as well as it's legitimacy due to there were russian people there dying from Kiev army.

    And USA and UK destroyed whole countries killing more million people with no problems at all. Go to them and tell how they should behave first.

    Jeff1000 -> jezzam 15 May 2015 09:41

    The main ain of the West is to get the basic institutions of democracy installed in all countries; Fair elections, rule of law, independent judiciary, free press.

    You don't honestly believe that, do you?

    Volkovolk -> jezzam 15 May 2015 09:37

    You are either really naive or really ignorant. Or both.

    The main goal of the West is to preserve it's dominance that it get after Gorbachev trew all interests and chivements of USSR in wondow. Economical, politicall. Means to reach this goal are rally simple - to install their system, their values and their ideas as the major ones in the world. To create a system that that it's creator (US) can easily manipulate. For example to use this free press and bla-bla-bla-bla to overtrow governments where and when they feel the need to do so, like it was done on maidan and during so calles Arabian Spring.

    The evidience are overwhelming? Tell that to Greec. The economy of US and Europe os working on basis of expansion, of assimilation of lesser economies. And this is another reason of this cover war of US for spheres of influence.

    No ideas, no idealogy, just pragmatism and need to get benefit for US.

    Alexandra_Aleshina 15 May 2015 09:33

    "all-out war against the west"

    It is absolute baloney! There is no aggression against west in Russia! Yes, Russia is ready for war, but for protection only. Russia does not want it. So please stop to portray Russia as a world aggressor, because it is not so!

    jezzam -> Volkovolk 15 May 2015 09:29

    You say the West's actions are "A cover for secret carving of world in one big sphere of influence. Western and basically US influence."

    The main ain of the West is to get the basic institutions of democracy installed in all countries; Fair elections, rule of law, independent judiciary, free press. True it is in the West's interests to do this, but it is also in the interest of the populations of every country. The evidence is overwhelming that countries with these institutions have populations that are happier, richer and healthier than those without them. The only European country that does not have them now is Russia.

    Volkovolk -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 09:20

    Because NATO near borders of Russia is both danger to russian safety and kinda indulgence for antirussian policy of Lithuania. NATO is offensive war alliance that was created to fight against Soviet Union that was led, basically, by Russia. So NATO is antiRussian alliance from the beginning.

    jezzam -> Alexander Ilichev 15 May 2015 09:18

    Misdeeds by the West do not justify misdeeds by Russia. I assume you are referring to Iraq - generally accepted as illegal and disastrous for the West. Putin's Ukraine invasion was equally illegal and even more disastrous for Russia.

    Volkovolk -> MentalToo 15 May 2015 09:16

    Igor Girkin can mumble all he want because he is not a politician or any influential figure. And why he fortified Slavyansk? Perhaps because of neonazi rampage?

    Putin... send... Girkin? Bwa-ha-ha-ha!!! Oh, you are funny. Girkin came himself because he is kinda glory hound. According to facts.

    Nice and simple would be smashing of ukrainian neo-nazism and no anti-russian propaganda that foolish ukrainian elite decided to use to validate independence of Ukraine. But as we both know it is not nice and not simple, yeah, Bizarro?

    MentalToo -> Volkovolk 15 May 2015 09:15

    They are free to do what is not harming interests of others, more influential and powerful states and of other nations on their territory.
    So because Russia is more powerful than Lithuania, Lithuania was not allowed to join Nato?


    Z'ing Sui -> alpamysh 15 May 2015 07:30

    So you're saying India has more industrial know-how and has a better education level overall that Russia? Again, are you being serious? That Russia doesn't have, say, cheap sneakers and t-shirt industry doesn't mean much in my book, especially when the factories, patents and know-how are more likely to belong to transnational corporations anyway.

    I already said, that I find these commonplace economy arguments (size, diversification) weak. USSR lacked or was hopelessly behind in economy by these metrics, yet it was a superpower that sometimes almost rivaled the US and Europe combined. Russia is no Soviet Union, yet the goal is not to dominate half the world, but simply to be one of about 6 or 8 global powers acting independently in its own region of the world. Seems entirely manageable for Russia.


    John Smith -> Malcolm Ronald Davis 15 May 2015 06:54

    That would not have happened had not Slobodan Milosevic been undertaking a brutal ethnic war against the Kosovars, having already contributed to an equally brutal war against the Bosnian Muslims. I think the 1999 Kosovo conflict is an excellent example of 'Responsibility to Protect' (R2P).

    And how things are there in Langley?

    KLA was on the US list of terrorist organisations 1998. They were killing police, army, postmen and even Albanians with less extremist views from Rugova's party which in any way didn't collaborate with Miloshevich ( they were boycotting the elections). Albanians had education, universities, TV and press in their own language. Miloshevich became famous for his words at Kosovo: "No one can beat you!", replying to Serbs complaining of harassment by Albanian policemans whom were dominant in numbers.

    They have chosen terrorism, like 2001 and again today in Macedonia to make the Great Albania. Are they suppressed in Macedonia today? They are in the government, they had two defence ministers in a former governments, what is wrong now?

    KLA is the US lapdog, they trained them and armed them and what recent events show didn't disarmed them at all after 1999. They had even pretty exotic AMAC 1500 in their possession. And the US will use them anytime when they want to destabilize the region.

    Z'ing Sui -> alpamysh 15 May 2015 06:33

    These speeches about Russia being a third-world hellhole some people on the Internet just love, they're crazy, and they're as easy as a google search or a wikipedia to disprove. I mean you're saying that like in Russia sucks compared to India. Are you actually, really, being serious?

    And when it comes to Russia not having a great chance to be a power in the future because of low population, it's a good argument, a little better than the economic one, but still not decisive. To me it seems obvious that Russia has enough technological, military and political edge to stay a world power for a long while yet.

    oleteo -> Sceptical Walker 15 May 2015 06:18

    Red Army was able to turn the tide as you formulated not after the regrouping further but because they were ready to die for their soil and relatives while a peaceful life continued in European countries.

    This invader came or the other one, some nuisance at last for the most part of Europeans.

    Or can you allege the majority of them didn't live their lives and took the ams in the hands?

    Russians has to be slaves or exterminated and they had no habit to surrender. There is no equality between communism and fascism as no equality between murderer and victim

    Jeff1000 -> alpamysh 15 May 2015 06:10

    You are a racist lunatic, with a strange agenda.

    17 posts on this topic in 90 minutes. That's once every 5.3 minutes. Slower than your usual rate, but hey, it's Friday.


    ijustwant2say -> kraljevic 15 May 2015 04:48

    "That power was Russia."

    Actually, let's be honest, Russia's sacrifice, large though it was, had little to do with freeing Europe. It had everything to do with fighting for Russia's very existence after Hitker reneged on his pact with Stalin and attacked Russia.

    The actual power that had no reason to enter the fray but did - and unlike Russia took no territory afterwards - was the U.S. Russia, and to a lesser extent Britain had no choice but get involved, America CHOSE to put its blood and treasure on the line, And then they left.

    That must be worth something, surely, especially considering how Russia occupied all the territories that became the USSR, substituting one extremist regime Fascism with another Communism.

    And don't forget that without US and UK aid and supplies Russia would not have held Stalingrad.

    As the great man said: those who don't learn from history are likely to repeat it.


    Z'ing Sui -> AnhTay 15 May 2015 03:11

    Come on, world is clearly not multipolar, not yet. But if it ever become one, Russia would be a center of power, if a much smaller one than the US, EU or China. Militarily and politically, there's really no sign that Russia is going away. People saying "~but Russia's economy is so small" should be pointed at the idea of this article I very much agree with. That idea is that economy is not everything.

    Russia could easily be a power on par with India in this new world, and it would almost certainly be much more influential in global affairs than South Korea, which has little chance of ever becoming its own center of power because of closeness to China.

    Kata L -> EmperorWearsNoCloths 15 May 2015 00:26

    that's why you trolls can earn your bag of rubleys

    if you have nothing to say

    The time has come for the United States to formulate and prosecute an integrated, comprehensive, and long-term geostrategy for all of Eurasia. This need arises out of the interaction between two fundamental realities:

    - America is now the only global superpower

    - Eurasia is the globe's central arena.

    Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy.

    by Zbigniew Brzezinski
    Harvard International Review
    Winter 1997/1998

    But, on 31 December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation.

    Bob Schmitz -> TecchnoExpertThanx 15 May 2015 00:16

    Look at the people (think tanks) around Masha Gessen en Dawisha. The figure of 70- 200 billion also comes from them.

    Indeed strange that a rather balanced article leans heavily on this incredibly biased source, which obtains half of its info through mindreading of Putins´ head.

    Gessen is probably a must-read for journalists.

    Subhasis Sengupta -> Subhasis Sengupta 14 May 2015 23:43

    the best part is Russia invaded guatemala, changed regime in iraq, libya, vietnam, panama, mexico, syria and US just did afghanistan... when these reporters write, all i can think of is laugh and tell these reporters and the oped writers, do u have a backbone, r u independent thinking, or get well soon buddy.

    Subhasis Sengupta -> Subhasis Sengupta 14 May 2015 23:40

    the US and EU apart from germany and france and austria and 50% of netherlands, finland, needs a war, why the very fast decline of the US economic system coming to an end... war is money, inventory buildup will be sold, new orders will be sold, new gas field will be in private control in ukraine and arctic... and bingo... consumer sentiment will rise so will be the rise of manufacturing... so the US economy grows.... we definitely need a war... and some fools still support that idea...

    Subhasis Sengupta 14 May 2015 23:38

    good to see american british propaganda running at full pace.... oops sorry american british piece of editorial are news... others are propaganda... news for peace and prosperity... peace when u have 350 military bases all over the world surrounding russia and china... prosperity when the 1% owns everything and a divided society is created... freedom of press when only what i say is correct, and even if i dont say the truth and say wrong things what i say is correct... oops i am a russian troll...

    HollyOldDog -> Botswana61 14 May 2015 23:36

    Chechnya was an internal problem. Georgia invaded South Ossetia while it was protected by an UN mandate and killed UN Peacekeepers. As the west dithered Russia drove the Georgians back to their own country. Russia has not invaded Ukraine though there is a Civil War occurring in Ukraine where West Ukraine has repeatedly violated the Minsk2 agreement. The Crimean citizens, after repeated attempts to become independent of Ukraine has voted to rejoin Russia ( Crimea rejoices each day that they are now with Russia - no military attacks from West Ukraine).

    The West Ukrainian government is now so vile that they now punish any descent from their own citizens, with imprisonment or death. Western Powers have now become truly despicable.

    HollyOldDog -> PacificPlasticPatch 14 May 2015 23:11

    Does any Russian trust the actions of Western Powers when they have repeatedly sought to asset strip friends (Ukraine fracking) and foe alike? In Iraq the museums containing the rare antiquities from that country were allowed to be looted while the Oil Ministry building was heavily guarded.

    Why was Iraq invaded since any supposed WMD's were destroyed years previously ( and documented). Best guess is that Iraq stopped having wars with Iran.

    Natalia N -> UncleSam404 14 May 2015 22:19

    Ukraine wanted to become Europe.
    Ukraine has become even poorer.
    People from Ukraine massively move to Russia.
    WTF?

    TecchnoExpertThanx 14 May 2015 21:45

    Alluding to the Donbass region, the author concludes that...

    it is hardly surprising that the Kremlin has been fighting its propaganda war with particular intensity here.

    The moment Poroshenko labelled the entire region terrorists and the military campaign an ATO, cutting of pensions and services right at the start of the campaign and then not to mention both targeted and indiscriminate shelling of civilians.... ANY Kremlin propaganda would just be a waste of money.

    greatwhitehunter -> Botswana61 14 May 2015 21:24

    On the contrary only 20% of the USA,s export earnings are made from physical exports the rest is basically made from clipping the ticket or stealing if you like.

    take Boeing and military out of this and what do you have left.

    As an example the ukraine crisis came about not for the reasons that we read about in the media but because russia china india were in the process of replacing the $ as the worlds trading currency.

    The economy of my country is quite small but we saved billions of dollars every year by making our currency trade-able with the yuan. The continuation of the cold war in effect maintains the USA,s ability to tax the world .


    John Smith -> oresme 14 May 2015 20:04

    Kiev was a Khazar city. It was not founded by Normans, And the Normans is a maybe wrong term, Vikings or Varyags as Russians called them would be more appropriate.
    Russians went there with a Viking leadership and trick them and took the city.
    Recently one historical document was found in Cairo from a late 800's I think, where it was written that the government of Kieb, Khazars called it that way, tried to arrange some ransom money for one of the citizens that was captured.

    All of the names ( local government) were Khazar/Jewish, no Slavic or 'Nordsman'
    names there.

    But Nevertheless, you're correct and there was an astonishing influence of Vikings/Norseman to our civilisation not only in exploring, but also they invented/ reinvented accounting that haven't changed much till or times thousand years after (that was in Sicily).


    John Smith Malcolm -> Ronald Davis 14 May 2015 19:29

    And you're completely lost with that wall of text.

    Russia hasn't invaded anything, they had more than 16.000 soldiers there.
    The parliament of Crimea voted for a referendum and people of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. The vast majority of Ukrainian soldiers joined the Russian army.

    Is NATO a defensive alliance ? What was NATO defending in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan ?

    Nemtsov had zero influence in Russia like the most of the 'liberal' ( read payed from the west) opposition. Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky, those are opposition leaders that people vote for. You wouldn't like to see them in power for sure.

    You can forget about 'Maidan' in Moscow, those few thousands can run around and shout what they like ( I saw Ukrainians last year shouting very offensive words about Putin and nothing happened), that's just a clown parade.

    What aggression in Georgia and Estonia?

    Georgians attacked the peacekeepers, check what OSCE said about that.
    Not to mention who armed and trained Georgians. NATO training is a pure BS. Georgians, Iraqis, Afghani... what they learned from those trainings? Nothing
    Whom was NATO fighting with to have a combat experience to train someone ?
    Iraqi Army in the collapse at the level of the 70s and ill-equipped insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq they burned them with phosphorus and in Afghan have not achieved anything, last week some westerners were captured in a hotel in Kabul. What would that look like if Russians sold them some Strela's to fight against the aviation support ? They would be massacred.

    The best advice would be keep your nose out those places, your governments just brought a destruction, failure and misery wherever they sticked them.


    Bouduain bloomday 14 May 2015 18:56

    Kremlin's constant harping on about Ukranian fascism

    You harp on about "harping on." I suspect it is not the unyielding denial you were seeking from this article. And of course Russia has its fascists. Little nazi's are a world wide plague. In America, they're called patriots; and their political wing is the Tea-baggers.

    A heady mix of ultra conservative Ultras (yobs heavy on idiocy), and fully declared proto-fascists, largely from a relatively small range in western Ukraine, took over neo-liberal origins of the protest and ran Yanukovic out of office. EuroMaiden was not fascist inspired, or organized, but hard core nationalists, fascists, protofascists, ... however you wish to slot the idiots ... took it over, and ended it with bricks, fire, and a good deal of pointed guns.

    Ultra right wing, self-identified fascists - ultimately concentrated in deep west where all the few seats virtually reach back to, - with ties to former brutal "glories" of nasty elements allied not just with Hitler Germany, but Mein Kempf ideology - only took, something, like 7% of the vote during the Poroshenko election. Oddly, they were awarded the most dangerous ministry; internal security.

    Beyond control of security (state police, central intelligence, etc) that tiny representation of fascist Ukraine also has its own politically allied military units - graciously serving under Kiev's command. (Sarcasted emphasis mine). They have two full battalions in the Ukrainian national army, if you can call whatever that is, a national military. Hell, there is an oligarch with his mercenary army badgering Dombass. There is no single Ukrainian military command.

    Ukraine is not a fascist state. It is virtually a failed state; but its large numbers hardly voted fascist. The majority of what's left of Ukraine hardly shares the fascist inspirations of the controlling minority in Rada. My faith, and heart, went out to rational Ukrainians when vast numbers of certain conscripts split the country or simply holed-up with neibours where they couldn't be found; when western Ukrainian mothers burned call-up notices on the road while cameras rolled; or the shear volume of "switched one corrupt oligarch for another" type decent from original neoliberal-liberal EuroMaidan protestors that is suppressed today.

    Poroshenko is no fascist, at least not over the wee share of the Ukraine he splits with Yatsenuk. At worst I peg him a neocon, a dodgy oligarch who is hardly in full control of anything - least not the military. I'd probably place Yats in the fascists' camp, but he's dodged that official declaration so far. Not so with the over-compensated, outright Bandera worshipers who made it into the Rada. They openly promote it.

    The fascist element in this mess is a problem. By no popular authority should they have been given armed wings of the government. They should have been relegated to positions that fit 7% popularity - back behind the friggin back benches!

    The article was measured - almost journalism. A decent read from the regular NN/TGA crap Guardian runs. I did find it bit of a illogical walk about; and certainly par for Guardian editorial positions: a decent whitewash of the whole fascist taint in Kiev. She hardly talked about it ... except it is somehow connected to the prerequisite charge of "propaganda"; and that Russians fear it more then me, and many others like me out here in the west who take it very seriously. Denial seems to be your domain.

    Ukraine needs to shed the stink of fascists and start acting like a responsible state ... a state that will never force Crimea or Dombass back into the fold. Hell ... give Lviv its independence too, and send the viscous fools home. Definitely relegate them to the political hinterlands where they belong. Maybe Ukraine will have a nation they can govern.

    (W)ith no dissenting view allowed in the Russian media to counter, …

    I'm far more concerned with the one line we are getting fed west of Winchester. McCain, Harper, Abbott, Cameron WEST. (Pick one or insert yours into the western MSM mix if they fit).

    vr13vr 14 May 2015 17:58

    It wouldn't be a reasonable article if the author stayed away from the silly and sometimes cold war era rhetoric. "Empire", "insecurity", "damaged ego," "feeling excluded." That's a stupid thing to say about the nation. How about a more straight talk - we don't threaten them and don't try to hurt them and they will not threaten us?

    nnedjo 14 May 2015 17:19

    Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back, a major conflict really does seem possible. Russian aircraft and submarines are playing war games around the coasts of Europe. But a plane crossing into Baltic air space could trigger Nato retaliation with conventional arms, which could in turn could spark a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Russia – a strategic response born of a fear of weakness in the face of superior American military power.

    I've read so far all kinds of accusations against Russia, but I have to admit that such outrageous accusation I have not read so far. Thus, the author of this article directly accuses Russia of a possible nuclear war, which practically means the end of civilization, at least as we have known so far.

    However, at the same time it shows how accusations of any kind when it comes to Russia, are completely meaningless.

    So if one day really came to nuclear war, and if humanity ceases to exist, whether it will be important at all who is to blame? Or better said, the big question is whether it will be left at least one man who could blame anyone for that.

    Therefore, if we will not be able to blame Russia after that, then let's to blame in advance. And in that blame should not have a limit, it should go beyond every limits. Even behind a nuclear war, and the end of human history.

    John Smith -> VladPutil 14 May 2015 17:02

    No -the first action was armed Russian special forces "disguised" as little green men took over government building in East Ukraine

    You forgot taking over government buildings in Kiev and earlier in the West Ukraine in January where they took some 1500 AK's ?
    Very selective memory from your side.


    Ruslan Zigangirov -> Sceptical Walker 14 May 2015 16:46

    I hope that does not happen. I hope that Poland will be enough reason not to deploy a missile defense system, which represents a mortal danger to Russia on its territory. The US missile defense system is designed so that the system can manage only the Americans. In fact, Poland will be holding a gun with a remote control aimed at Russia.

    If the Poles are stupid and do it, then the elements of the missile defense system will be destroyed blow tactical missiles or using special forces operations. It will be a lot of screaming and sanctions, but if you think that the US president or the president of France ad war on Russia risking a nuclear attack on its capital for Poland, you are naive.

    Ruslan Zigangirov -> VladPutil 14 May 2015 16:22

    You absolutely do not understand what happened in South Ossetia and Moldova (no Romania). The conflict between South Ossetia and Georgia began in 1918, but since the entry of these territories into the Soviet Union, this conflict has been frozen. When the Soviet Union broke up, Georgia by military force tried to take control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the war began. Russia intervened and stopped the war, the conflict has been frozen. Compliance agreements provide Russian peacekeepers on the border between Georgia and South Ossetia. When Saakashvilli became president of Georgia, he began to seek NATO membership for Georgia. The Americans helped him, they are fully equipped and trained the Georgian army, but there was one problem. For domestic reasons Saakashvilli could not refuse to South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Georgia considers the territory of his own. Georgia's accession to NATO with unresolved territorial disputes was impossible.

    In 2008 Saakashvilii launched a military operation to seize South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russian peacekeepers have not missed his army on the border and what he did? He killed them. I do not know what he relied, perhaps he thought that Russia will quietly watch as Saakashvilli killing Russian peacekeepers. Further everyone knows. Russia has destroyed the Georgian army and restore the status quo, Georgia has not been had occupied.

    nnedjo 14 May 2015 15:51

    The conventional view in the west is that the blame lies with Putin and his kleptocratic regime. According to this narrative, the regime went into attack mode after the oil price collapsed. It distracted attention from its own failure to diversify the economy by lashing out against an external enemy, and launching a brilliant propaganda campaign.

    This version of events, while not untrue, lets the west off the hook far too easily.

    This is an obvious nonsense. Joining of Crimea to Russia, as well as demonstrations in the southeast of Ukraine took place in March last year, to immediately afterwards broke out armed conflict. On the other hand, the fall in the price of oil began in June 2014. So how is it possible to claim that what happened earlier was the result of what happened later?

    nnedjo -> Terry Ross 14 May 2015 15:20

    At the time of the Soviet Union, there was the Eastern bloc countries, or the Warsaw Pact. However, all these countries have had strong borders that could not be crossed without a passport, and, at least officially, there are not numerous commissioners, among whom also Enlargement Commissioner. Also, It could not happen that some supranational commission ban any of those countries to establish economic cooperation with third countries or, for example, to ban the already signed agreements on gas pipeline construction.

    And all of this you have now in the European Union.

    Imagine for example, that during the Cold War, Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev, are sending their "Enlargement Commissioner" in one of the Western European countries to check the progress of work on the harmonization of legislation of these countries with the legislation of the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

    So, this is perhaps one drastic comparison, but it helps to get a picture of what is happening in recent years. Some in the West may have recognized that enlargement of the EU is also kind of expansionism, but a kind of "peaceful" and "voluntary" expansionism. However, what kind of "peaceful expansionism" is that, if it is accompanied also by occasional revolutions and even wars.

    Terry Ross 14 May 2015 14:38

    I cannot believe that someone has spent 30 years travelling to Russia and knows so little about its geopolitics. The author makes a point about about Russian expansionism, thus: 'Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back' The comment although widely held in the West, has little evidence to support it.

    The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and Putin came to power in 2000. During that time, 14 years snce Putin first becoming president and 23 years since the end of the Soviet Union, there has not been a single case of ANY Russian expansionism prior to Crimea last year. The whole argument hinges on Crimea and its referendum.

    Several Western polling companies have tried to demonstrate that the results of that referendum were were not representative of Crimean wishes, but they all failed: Gallup, Pew Research and GfK all reported confirmation of the referendum result with figures ranging from 83% to 93% approval.

    Crimea seceded from Ukraine and sought reunification with Russia. Whatevere the arguments of 'little green men' facilitating such a process, the facts are clear. This was a Crimean choice.

    So that means that there has not been a single case of Russian expansionism after 1991.
    One mast ask then, what is the justification for making a comment such as, ''Since the regime is fixated on the idea of getting its empire back''?

    Autoclave 14 May 2015 14:37

    Who stands to gain by escalating tensions towards WW3? Only 2 years ago, remember the news stories about NATO's very existence being questioned. Then conveniently we see a Western backed overthrow of Kiev by an unelected fascist neo-nazi government. Would this have happened if Ukraine wasn't on the doorstep of Russia, or they weren't the main channel of Russian natural gas into Europe? No. There's big money to be made by expanding NATO and allowing Western companies to get a foothold in the country and control its resources reminiscent of the Halliburton expansion after the Iraq invasion of 2003. Forget the Cold War rhetoric. Follow the money.

    kraljevic -> ijustwant2say 14 May 2015 14:28

    I don't minimize the critical importance of the battle of Britain and the bravery of those who fought in it. It bought much needed breathing space and hope to millions who were becoming resigned to Nazi dominance.Nobody is suggesting otherwise but even Churchill knew it was a holding action that could only be of real benefit to Britain if another major power entered the war.That power was Russia and if the battle of Britain was a down payment towards final victory the balance of the account was paid for almost entirely by Russian blood and sacrifice!

    nnedjo -> EnviroCapitalist 14 May 2015 14:18

    Actually the $5 billion was over 2 decades. The biggest single item is remedial works at the Chernobyl nuclear power station.

    Two decades, of course, and the "Orange Revolution" took place a decade ago. So after another decade, another 'Maidan revolution. "Besides that, Victoria Nuland did not include Chernobyl at all in those $5 billion. She said that these $5 billion has been invested to "support democracy" in Ukraine.

    John Smith -> alpamysh 14 May 2015 14:15

    Ukropithecus nazi at his best. That is their way, bombing schools, hospitals, they don't know how to fight, that would need some brains.

    Kieran Woods -> bovinescatology 14 May 2015 14:14

    Well said Agnes,

    The US / NATO onward march of sanctions, military intervention, coups, support of evil regimes and general creation of misery continues.
    Too bad that Putin, with practically no military bases outside his own soil, unlike the Washington war monger's hundreds, has proved to be a formidable opponent who will never be a push over or puppet.

    JoeCorr -> PacificPlasticPatch 14 May 2015 14:00

    Ukraine is a sovereign nation deciding its own course,

    Nope. The CIA and Victoria Nuland are deciding Ukraine's course. Another example of America blundering around outside its own borers up to it ass in a culture it doesn't understand.

    The EU have the wealth and political talent to put an end to American interference in European affairs. I wish to fuck they'd start to undo Americas mistakes before it's too late.

    elias_ -> geedeesee 14 May 2015 13:55

    Yes. Now 14 months on where are we? EU confirms no more EU expansion for 10 years. With no prospect of EU membership what was the Maidan really for? Ukraine seems to be screwed now. Their economy is toast, massive inflation, civil war, gas transit fees stopping in a few years, Crimea lost, antagonism with their biggest trading partner, Oligarchs still in charge and still stealing....

    Q: Do you think the Ukrainian people are happy with their new leadership? Do you think they are grateful for all the Nuland cookies?

    kraljevic -> alpamysh 14 May 2015 13:48

    The history books say otherwise. The course of the war was decided in the east and Britain and France were reduced to being largely spectators as their fate was being determined along with everybody else by the tenacity and bravery of the Russian Muzhik bringing the Germans to their knees.

    That's not a very palatable outcome for two powers used to being the cornerstone of the European order and it is natural that they both try to bring down the new/old upstart down a peg or two.

    But still their efforts cannot compare with that of Soviet Russia as the German casualty lists testify! As for the climate the Germans were already suffering setbacks and defeats in 1941(as at Yelnya) on a much greater scale than in the west even before the winter set in!

    nnedjo -> PacificPlasticPatch 14 May 2015 13:44

    Interesting your assumption that any embrace between Ukraine and the West is "illegal".

    It is not "any embrace." When someone invests billions of dollars in "training opposition" of a sovereign nation, then for months supports violent demonstrations against the sovereign president of a sovereign nation, and strictly prohibit the sovereign president to disperse the demonstrators who burn tires and erected tents on the square in the capital, and at the end recognize a government that is not recognized by most of the sovereign nation, then I do not see what's legal in all this.
    Imagine that Russia acted in the same way in relation to Ukraine, or, for example, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, ..., and so on to Hungary, Poland or former Czechoslovakia. Would west just watched it idly, and thought that it was all legal?

    nnedjo 14 May 2015 13:19

    Westerners have for years been giggling at 'Allo 'Allo and John Cleese's goosestep, but fascism is no laughing matter in this country.

    In fact, this whole article reminds me of one of the usual scenes from the series "Alo, Alo":

    Every time Mrs. Edith finds her husband Rene embraced by some of the lovely waitress, he said to her something like: "You stupid woman, don't you see I'm helping Michelle to pull out the speck that fell in her eye!"
    :-)))

    So Western narrative when it comes to Russia, mainly reminiscent of the tactics of the culprit caught in the act, that Rene is abundantly practiced in the series "Alo, Alo".

    Illegal embrace between the West and Ukraine, in the West are generally interpreted as a harmless attempt to "remove the speck from eye", while Russia is behaving like a "too jealous wife" who sees everything as bad intentions.

    Beckow -> Corsair1972 14 May 2015 13:05

    "Putin has shadowy wealth of $70bn and $200bn"

    And you know who else does? Hitler.

    RRRRiiight, I stopped reading at that point. If this is an "understanding" article, we are really done here.

    Beckow -> Slo27 14 May 2015 13:02

    "Supporting protesters and occupying a country whose territorial integrity you are formally guaranteeing just cannot be compared"

    How about "helping to overthrow an elected government in Kiev and allowing for self-determination of a majority in Crimea just cannot be compared".

    See, how flexible words can be?

    But I sense that we are done here, words have been misused so much, that there is no point in all this talk. And I do think that Western media has had a major part in this.


    Dimmus -> alpamysh 14 May 2015 12:47

    "Putin STARTED a war in Ukraine--when every responsible leader in Ukraine was trying to resolve things peacefully..."

    1) The war started when anti-Russian actions started and the first move was made not by Russia;

    2) "when every responsible leader in Ukraine" - about which leaders and about which Ukraine do you speak? About those who started to rule without impeachment of the president and supported killing of pro-federalization people?

    Agnes Maria 14 May 2015 12:40

    The Russian regime is not 'fixated on getting its empire back'. It is focused on developing and sustaining a now rapidly progressing system that has been mercilessly interrupted by the EU and US, in what can only be called an affront against civilised society itself and not some kind of containment strategy against Russia. Russia is not going to capitulate, bend over backwards, surrender or otherwise dishonour itself with begging for leniency. The only major regimes hell-bent on expansionism are those of the USA, EU and NATO, and they do this by any means necessary, as evidenced by their calloused ability to function as the enemies of humanity by infiltrating popular movements worldwide with extremist sentiments of every kind, from Islamic to Christian to White Supremacist to outright neo-Nazi. And they do this not for democracy, but for profit and for kicks, like a spoiled child who just figured out that they can manipulate their environment but does not yet have the capacity to consider or care about the consequences of their actions. Leaving ruin in their wake, the West leaves those with eyes to see and ears to hear no choice but to meet them with distrust. Naturally we will prepare for war, hopefully it will not come to war. Those who do not want to submit to the West and its hysterical propaganda-fuelled, veiled expansionist will not hold out hope for logic and reason to prevail and lead to a sensible solution. Nations being most used as weapons against Russia are most heavily infiltrated with this propaganda, which preys and plays on their unresolved historical pain that has not been met with straight, simple compassion from any side. These nations people, for the most part, know only self-victimisation due to this propaganda and so they are dangerous. However, they are virtual slaves, mental and emotional slaves, and that means they need to be freed from this misconstrued thinking. They cannot get over their pain and move on as long as Russia does not care about them, straight from the heart, and it really is that simple. They also cannot stop fearing Russia and giving NATO an excuse to encroach closer on Russia's borders unless Russia actively creates a new bond with them. There is no other way, and it will not go away if ignored. Those nations will not go their own way after being cut loose, like young people going to start their own lives after leaving home. Action to do something about this needs to be taken now, and not put on the back burner or not taken seriously enough. The future is up to Russia, not the mad West that does not even have a clue who and what they are engaging. They do not understand the spirit of Russians any more than they understand their way of thinking and feeling, and yet they purport to deal with them according to what is allegedly appropriate. It is not appropriate to sanction a well developed society full of modern people who are not about to do your bidding. Everyone has work cut out for them in this case, but only those who are friends of humanity, of all nations, actually care to do it right. And even they have procrastinated too long and can afford to lose no more time.

    [May 12, 2015]The cancer that threatens Europe

    Rebelion

    A year after the fall of President Yanukovych, and the triumph of the coup in Kiev, Ukraine continues immersed in a civil war that Poroshenko promised that he would win in a month. It is difficult to find a scenario where Western irresponsibility is so great as in Ukraine. In a year, the heads of the European and US diplomats have gone to stimulate protests and finance groups of thugs and provocateurs, while distributing biscuits in the Maidan, as did Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of the US State Department, to contemplate unmoved a civil war that has already caused thousands of deaths in the east, and that can lead to a larger European war if diplomacy established in Minsk agreements not consolidated.

    However, the absence of US negotiations and persistent temptation to stoke clashes over the procedure of arming the government of Kiev and advise its troops to the spread of a war that could involve NATO have opened a dangerous wound in Europe. Obama, the Pentagon and the State Department, discuss the extent of their involvement in the war, because, in practice, already engaged by interposed actors, and sent advisors, spies and mercenaries. Victoria Nuland, moreover, has had no qualms in meeting with Andriy Parubiy, the neo-Nazi leader who organized the Maidan in Kiev with the complicity of the American CIA and the Polish AW, and later became head of the Security Council National government emerged from the coup. Accustomed to manipulation and propaganda, Washington and the headquarters of NATO in Brussels, assisted by an army of unscrupulous journalists, have raised a giant edifice of lies reminiscent of other wars, such as Yugoslavia and Iraq, knowing that Memory of public opinion is weak and a plug lies to others. Because the fire of Ukraine has a logic that makes sense when it is repaired in wars initiated by the United States in recent years in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen.

    Under Yanukovych, rampant corruption was rife, and strangled the country, but all the steps taken so far, obliging hand with Washington, government Poroshenko and Yatseniuk, have gone in the direction of the disaster. Poroshenko Ukraine is now run by a grotesque capitalist country where they send the new oligarchy created from theft, as yesterday, but the thugs and murderers, commanders of armed right-wing groups, who do not hesitate to get rid of any , thieves of the country's resources and people that seems to be unsane. It is not an exaggeration: just look at the characters who stroll through the parliament and ministries, armed, accompanied by fascist thugs who do not hesitate to bring hand grenades in thier pockets. Although divided into factions, they share solidarity to be the beneficiaries of the coup who are protected by United States. Yatsenyuk (accomplice and partner in one of the major capitalist Ukrainian, Igor Kolomoisky, organizer and financer of fascist battalions) is one of Washington's men in Kiev; Poroshenko doubt rapprochement between Berlin and submission to the United States, and as Turchinov and other rulers, both wallow in corruption and incompetence, which has plunged the economy, while casting cries for help to Washington Berlin and they try to convince the world that Russia is a danger. Tellingly, all they are benefiting from a patriotic rhetoric going back to Stepan Bandera, and have hidden the horrors of Babi Yar and Volin. They also ignore symbols and the struggle against Nazism during World War II. They do not hesitate to use the crudest lies, providing, for example, Washington pictures taken on the war in Georgia in 2008 ... as evidence of the Russian invasion in Ukraine, leaving a paper snubbed US Senator Jim Inhofe.

    During the past year since the coup, corruption has not only not blocked, but it has increased, helped by the disarray of war, and it involves all the leaders of Kiev: Ukrainian press even talk that Poroshenko has achieved huge profits with their companies, and he has not hesitated to lie and take advantage of the state structures to enrich themselves even more. Thus, the Ukrainian economy, already going through a severe crisis, has been virtually destroyed: many factories have stopped working, it is common that no wages are paid in many companies, pensions are miserable and living conditions are getting tougher but the coup government knows that it may not have another opportunity like the present and its members steal handfuls. And war and fear many mouths silent.

    Poroshenko acknowledged that his forces had broken the first truce of Minsk, certainly advised by the American secret services, making a bet on a quick defeat of the rebels in the Donbass, but Russian help with arms and supplies to militias foiled the offensive and forced to Poroshenko to sign agreements Minsk II.

    If during the cold war the boundaries between right and left, between supporters and opponents of the United States were clear, today the situation is more confused. The Donbass have come volunteers from many countries, although in small numbers, to help the militias, from Communists and leftists to nationalists and members of the extreme right, to traditionalists Cossacks and supporters of the Pan-Slavic solidarity they see in Russia's older sister although it is clear that the anti-fascist and anti-imperialist reference is dominant between rebel forces and the fascist and Nazi symbols it is very present in the Ukrainian National Guard and the troops who fight with Kiev, also plagued by mercenaries and adventurers fascists. Thus, the Russian neo-Nazi group Restrukt (Restructura) supports the Ukrainian fascist party Pravii Serktor, a circumstance that has led members of the Ukrainian security services accused the FSB (Federal Security Service) to infiltrate Russian members of the organization (not arouse suspicions, and those who have purchased) in the Azov battalion (created by the coup government of Kiev and funded by the oligarch Igor Kolomoisky) in order to get information. It is one among many examples, similar to what they are doing Western intelligence services.

    A part of Russian nationalism supports, panrrusas considerations, the rebels of the Donbass, and in that constellation, neo-Nazi groups are, like far-right groups also sympathize with fascist groups of Maidan Kiev, and some groups Chechens, with opposing motivations, fight with both sides. Similarly, groups of Serbs have come to support the rebels in Eastern Ukraine protected by the Slav identity, which they consider threatened by the West, as they themselves noted in the Yugoslav wars, and have even gone Hungarian right-wing groups who dream to "recover" Romanian and Ukrainian territories to create a Greater Hungary ... you need the prerequisite for the partition of modern Ukraine. Nevertheless, these groups are very conservative minority among militants Donbass. Also some Russian groups speak of "imperialist confrontation" between Washington and Moscow, to apply a strict neutrality. To finish making the situation more confusing, the long arm of the secret service, the CIA, the Mossad, the German BND, the AW (Agencja Wywiadu) Polish, and others, have made possible the transit of mercenaries from the Middle East Ukraine, and Islamist groups in the Russian periphery, while the Russian FSB tries to jihadists CIA drone fighters do not come to Ukraine and Russia itself.

    If you have ceased fighting in Ukraine thanks to Minsk II, the propaganda war continues. Fantasy for devotees of NATO states: Putin's imperial dream, as shown annexation of Crimea, claims exclusive spheres of influence in Europe and provoked the most serious crisis since the collapse of the USSR. In devotional package also will Putin's role as an aggressor in the war, the demolition of the Malaysian aircraft, the violation of the borders of Ukraine, the deployment of Russian troops in the Donbass, and the violation of international law. No matter it has not shown any of these allegations, although no doubt that militias This would not have been able to withstand without Russian help in weapons, supplies and provisions. In the giant Western propaganda campaign efforts not lacking anyone remember the American and European encouragement and to overthrow a government, that of Yanukovich, elected by the Ukrainian people in elections that neither the United States nor the European Union considered illegitimate; and it has been hidden Western support for the violence unleashed by the fascist bands (tens of policemen were killed by gunshot wounds to the Maidan, for example) while the goodness of a supposed "peace movement" that wanted to "join Europe" was spreading , as remains in the shadow in the months before the fall of Yanukovych military training groups of mercenaries and fascists in Poland was organized to send them after the Maidan in Kiev; nor, of course, hardly any references to the gradual expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, war provocation of Georgia, missile defense, to attempt to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO do, to beat been to Kiev. Are patents the flimsy arguments Washington and its hypocritical subsequent outrage at Russian help to the militias, as if Putin had initiated the conflict, even the Ukrainian crisis be understood, because why would Moscow to create if the government Yanukovych maintained good relations with Russia? And, after the coup of pro-Western state, Moscow could leave their fate to the people revolted against Kiev and had been crushed by the coup government? But for those Americans in launching massive advertising campaigns to experts, the coup in Kiev has been turned into the "revolution of dignity" and their Ukrainian clients remember him every day in the press. A year after the fall of the government of Yanukovych, remain unclear killings by the mysterious snipers who caused carnage on the Maidan, and it was the fuse for the overthrow of the government. Neither the coup cabinet Kiev nor the United States have shown the slightest interest in that investigation, while the oligarchs loot and territory are spread: Igor Kolomoisky, one of the most corrupt millionaires Ukrainian financier Nazi groups, a character It has come to use groups of thugs to impose their wishes, buying judges and get judgments or, if necessary, the fakes, is now governor of Dnepropetrovsk. The Attorney General Viktor Shokin, neglecting the fight against corruption and crime, which disdains research snipers Maidan in the days of the coup against Yanukovych, and has no intention to clarify the horrific slaughter of building Odessa unions, working instead to outlaw the Communist Party, the only political force that attempts to limit the power of corrupt businessmen-thieves; because the Communist Party is the only party which denounces fascism in Ukraine, claiming the dissolution of the Nazi paramilitary groups and asked, in vain, protection of monuments and symbols of the struggle against the Nazis during World War II.

    United States is torn between greater involvement in the war and the arms shipment. Influential private foundations and sectors of the Pentagon and government are inclined to send weapons, although they are aware that this does not become the Ukrainian army into a force capable of winning the civil war, and could create a difficult situation with Moscow. However, other sectors of the US administration, while accepting the risks of challenging Russia, a country with a huge nuclear arsenal, arming committed to Kiev confident that a war of attrition will eventually damage the Russian economy and, eventually, Putin could plunge, or at least make unviable restructuring effort in the Eurasian Union that Moscow plans.

    This, in Washington, amid absurd discussions about whether to send weapons to Ukraine "offensive" or "defensive" when the truth is that an escalation in the war would have a difficult start, and the temptation to annul Russia and moor closer to the European Union through a continental war is very much on Pentagon strategists and the White House. The state of opinion generated in Washington can give an idea comments one analyst at CSIS, Center for Strategic and International Studies, the most important "think tank" in American capital as for foreign policy issues. Andrew C. Kuchins, director of the Russia and Eurasia Program of CSIS, had the murdered Boris Nemtsov as a patriot and demonized Putin, saying the Russian President's speech in parliament in April 2014 might indicate the "tipping point Russia in a fascist state. " Obviously, for those who think, it would be more than justified open military intervention in Ukraine, even for intervening actors, mercenaries or soldiers of the most aggressive countries, such as Poland or the Baltic. After all, they can always argue the dangers of an "imminent Russian attack" or similar pretexts which led to the US aggression in Iraq.

    The strange murder of Boris Nemtsov (who, today, was a completely irrelevant politician in Russia) may have implications related to the Ukrainian crisis, and can not rule out the long hand of Nuland and the US government Russophobe circles, especially at the evidence that the disappearance of Nemtsov precisely not benefit Putin. Russian President made a tough bogey, Washington does not want to acknowledge their own responsibility in increasing international tension, we must remember that Putin began his presidency trying to accommodate a unipolar world led by the United States, demanding respect and recognition of interest Russians. The blatant disregard to the Russian president, the evidence that the United States is encouraging speculation and hypothetical partition of Russia, as it did with the Soviet Union, raised all alarms in Moscow and led to Putin, still under President George W . Bush, in his speech of February 2007 in Munich, where he denounced American expansionism and breach of all agreements signed or tacit, between Moscow and Washington after the demise of the Soviet Union. Since then, and despite the theatrics as the button "reset" offered by Hillary Clinton (which did not result in any change in US foreign policy), the United States has continued its military closer to the Russian borders.

    France and Germany have been involved in the search for a political solution to Ukraine, but thier room for maneuver is limited, because their governments have obligations as members of NATO, and Washington and the Allied headquarters in Brussels have made a speech that, in essence, has been imposed on all members and has also been adopted by Paris and Berlin, which, while still reluctantly bellicose speech, are forced to impose economic sanctions on Moscow and discuss most dangerous scenario where do not rule out sending arms and even military forces, but for the moment, that possibility is discussed in secret. Trapped in its own propaganda, the NATO countries are unable to assume that the Ukrainian crisis erupted not a "citizen protests" (otherwise, instigated and financed largely by Western countries), but by supporting a coup State and regime change which aims to incorporate Ukraine into an openly hostile military alliance with Moscow. If you show aggressive with others, you can not expect to be greeted with open arms.

    Neither the European Union nor, much less the United States, want to recognize that the commitment to integrate Ukraine into NATO is a real provocation against Russia (anyone imagine the hypothesis that Mexico or Canada to be integrated into an aggressive military alliance against Washington?), which has also unnecessary, brought a civil war has destroyed the Ukrainian economy, has opened a dangerous front in Europe and has dynamited the medium-term possibility of a friendly and peaceful coexistence in the continent. Ukrainian war that has been the result of calculation or an unintended consequence of the coup, the US does not mitigate responsibility. Adventurous war that US foreign policy has ignited is now presented as the sole responsibility of Moscow and dangerous test as Russian "expansionism," but forget that after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the manifest destiny of NATO was unable to start their dismantling but an accelerated expansion towards Russia's borders has led him to settle in eight countries (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria) and try to do with Georgia and Ukraine, including its facilities in some the old Soviet republics of Central Asia. That was the real military expansionism of the last two decades. Because Washington does not want to understand that security must be a shared principle, and to bring the military presence of NATO to Russia's own borders is not only a challenge but also the rupture of unstable international balances.

    Accusations and alarms, always without proof, launched by the US against Russia Philip M. Breedlove, commander of NATO forces in Europe, or the secret visit to Kiev in January 2015, General James R. Clapper, director of US National Intelligence, among others, they reflect the vision of the hawks in Washington. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, and the head of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, also support sending weapons to Kiev, and alarms launched by the hard Zbigniew Brzezinski on a hypothetical attack from Russia to the Baltic countries, will in the same direction: they want to send weapons to Ukraine, poison the situation and irreversible a European war, perhaps global, and this can be done through different ways, because the hawks in Washington have too many scruples: not long ago, General Wesley Clark declared to CNN about new Islamists slaughtered before the cameras: "We created the Islamic State funding of our allies."

    The recent declaration of the Ukrainian Communist Party, the main opposition force, now persecuted and reduced, closed with a worrying proclamation to Ukrainian and European: say no to war and fascism. Because that is the risk, the tumor that threatens to Ukraine and Europe. There are other problems for Europe, of course, added to the severe economic crisis and cracks in the euro area: from the unexpected Greek rebellion, that Brussels intends to subdue; until the response of the real powers in the hypothetical emergence of an opposition movement that although confusingly, in different countries challenging the neoliberal construction of the European Union; through the strengthening of the extreme right, who cares so much about its social model and because it can push back the ruling conservatives today formations; or even the wiles of unreliable British partner, head of American bridge in Europe, along with Polish and Baltic revanchist governments; and, finally, the challenges of terrorism that Europe and the US itself helped to create, but none of these problems is as serious as the war in Ukraine and the possibility of extending the rest of the continent if not consolidates diplomatic channels. Angela Merkel's pragmatism, promoting agreements Minsk, has a double interpretation: on the one hand, knows he can not overcome Russia in a global war and, therefore, walks wire diplomacy; secondly, even if I wanted to kneel to Moscow knows that victory would not be German, but American, and that pushes to Berlin at the balance between the required submission to Washington (NATO ata), self-interest in European stability and the ever-present German misgivings about the large Slavic country that refuses to accept Western supremacy. For its part, the US wants a weak Russia, and does not renounce its fragmentation, which would enable the US control of hydrocarbon deposits, and in that scenario, it is no coincidence that the United States is not involved in the peaceful solution to the Ukrainian crisis: open warfare submit to Moscow to the test, would prevent the rebuilding of ties between the former Soviet republics and block its economic modernization. At the same time, for the European Union, the extension of the Ukrainian war would be a nail in the coffin new strategic helplessness and submission with which Washington wants to lock Brussels: a confrontation between Russia and the European Union in Ukraine, one open and bleeding on the continent, injury is the best American hypothesis to strengthen their own power through NATO, to corner Russia, and to prepare themselves for the great battle of the coming decades: China.


    A little about Higinio Polo:
    Degree in Geography and History and a PhD in Contemporary History from the University of Barcelona.

    He has published numerous papers and essays on political and cultural issues, and regularly works in media such as the magazine El Viejo Topo, the newspaper Workers World and other conventional and digital publications.

    His books include The last days of Republican Barcelona, novels At the end of the afternoon, in Singapore are counted; Pearl belly, and the case Blondstein and Iran tests: Memories of Paradise; USA: the rogue state; Terrorism (in collaboration); Portraits (indoor); Dashiell Hammett. Crime fiction and Hollywood witch hunt; The night of Calcutta; Barcelona (confidential report). His last work published in 2014, is White roses on Stalingrad.

    Rebellion has posted this article with the author's permission through a license from Creative Commons, respecting their freedom to publish elsewhere.

    [May 11, 2015] Why Ukraine Still Cant Break Ties With Russian Aggressor State by Simon Shuster

    Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap. ..."
    "... Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits. ..."
    "... About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations. ..."
    "... So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms." ..."
    Apr 13, 2015 | TIME

    Having survived an assassin's bullet, a revolution and a war, Gennady Kernes now faces a fight over Ukraine's constitution

    One afternoon in late February, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Kharkov, Ukraine's second largest city, pushed his wheelchair away from the podium at city hall and, with a wince of discomfort, allowed his bodyguards to help him off the stage. The day's session of the city council had lasted several hours, and the mayor's pain medication had begun to wear off. It was clear from the grimace on his face how much he still hurt from the sniper's bullet that nearly killed him last spring. But he collected himself, adjusted his tie and rolled down the aisle to the back of the hall, where the press was waiting to grill him.

    "Gennady Adolfovich," one of the local journalists began, politely addressing the mayor by his name and patronymic. "Do you consider Russia to be an aggressor?" He had seen this loaded question coming. The previous month, Ukraine's parliament had unanimously voted to declare Russia an "aggressor state," moving the two nations closer to a formal state of war after nearly a year of armed conflict. Kernes, long known as a shrewd political survivor, was among the only prominent officials in Ukraine to oppose this decision, even though he knew he could be branded a traitor for it. "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap.

    It was a sign of his allegiance in the new phase of Ukraine's war. Since February, when a fragile ceasefire began to take hold, the question of the country's survival has turned to a debate over its reconstitution. Under the conditions of the truce, Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace "federalization," a sweeping set of constitutional reforms that would take power away from the capital and redistribute it to the regions. Ukraine now has to decide how to meet this demand without letting its eastern provinces fall deeper into Russia's grasp.

    The state council charged with making this decision convened for the first time on April 6, and President Petro Poroshenko gave it strict instructions. Some autonomy would have to be granted to the regions, he said, but Russia's idea of federalization was a red line he wouldn't cross. "It is like an infection, a biological weapon, which is being imposed on Ukraine from abroad," the President said. "Its bacteria are trying to infect Ukraine and destroy our unity."

    Kernes sees it differently. His city of 1.4 million people is a sprawling industrial powerhouse, a traditional center of trade and culture whose suburbs touch the Russian border. Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine.

    "That's how the Soviet Union built things," Kernes explains in his office at the mayoralty, which is decorated with an odd collection of gifts and trinkets, such as a stuffed lion, a robotic-looking sculpture of a scorpion, and a statuette of Kernes in the guise of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union. "That's how our factories were set up back in the day," he continues. "It's a fact of life. And what will we do if Russia, our main customer, stops buying?" To answer his own question, he uses an old provincialism: "It'll be cat soup for all of us then," he said.

    Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.

    But that pain will be just the beginning, says Kernes, unless Ukraine allows its eastern regions to develop economic ties with Russia. As proof he points to the fate of Turboatom, his city's biggest factory, which produces turbines for both Russian and Ukrainian power stations. Its campus takes up more than five square kilometers near the center of Kharkov, like a city within a city, complete with dormitories and bathhouses for its 6,000 employees. On a recent evening, its deputy director, Alexei Cherkassky, was looking over the factory's sales list as though it were a dire medical prognosis. About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations.

    "Unfortunately, all of our major industries are intertwined with Russia in this way," Cherkassky says. "So we shouldn't fool ourselves in thinking we can be independent from Russia. We are totally interdependent." Over the past year, Russia has started cutting back on orders from Turboatom as part of its broader effort to starve Ukraine's economy, and the factory has been forced as a result to cut shifts, scrap overtime and push hundreds of workers into retirement.

    At least in the foreseeable future, it does not have the option of shifting sales to Europe. "Turbines aren't iPhones," says Cherkassky. "You don't switch them out every few months." And the ones produced at Turboatom, like nearly all of Ukraine's heavy industry, still use Soviet means of production that don't meet the needs of most Western countries. So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms."

    Russia knows this. For decades it has used the Soviet legacy of interdependence as leverage in eastern Ukraine. The idea of its "federalization" derives in part from this reality. For two decades, one of the leading proponents of this vision has been the Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin, who heads the Kremlin-connected institute in charge of integrating the former Soviet space. Since at least 2004, he has been trying to turn southeastern Ukraine into a zone of Russian influence – an effort that got him banned from entering the country between 2006 and 2010.

    His political plan for controlling Ukraine was put on hold last year, as Russia began using military means to achieve the same ends. But the current ceasefire has brought his vision back to the fore. "If Ukraine accepts federalization, we would have no need to tear Ukraine apart," Zatulin says in his office in Moscow, which is cluttered with antique weapons and other military bric-a-brac. Russia could simply build ties with the regions of eastern Ukraine that "share the Russian point of view on all the big issues," he says. "Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir, and they would sing for us. This would be our compromise."

    It is a compromise that Kernes seems prepared to accept, despite everything he has suffered in the past year of political turmoil. Early on in the conflict with Russia, he admits that he flirted with ideas of separatism himself, and he fiercely resisted the revolution that brought Poroshenko's government to power last winter. In one of its first decisions, that government even brought charges against Kernes for allegedly abducting, threatening and torturing supporters of the revolution in Kharkov. After that, recalls Zatulin, the mayor "simply chickened out." Facing a long term in prison, Kernes accepted Ukraine's new leaders and turned his back on the separatist cause, refusing to allow his city to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine.

    "And you know what I got for that," Kernes says. "I got a bullet." On April 28, while he was exercising near a city park, an unidentified sniper shot Kernes in the back with a high-caliber rifle. The bullet pierced his lung and shredded part of his liver, but it also seemed to shore up his bona fides as a supporter of Ukrainian unity. The state dropped its charges against him soon after, and he was able to return to his post.

    It wasn't the first time he made such an incredible comeback. In 2007, while he was serving as adviser to his friend and predecessor, Mikhail Dobkin, a video of them trying to film a campaign ad was leaked to the press. It contained such a hilarious mix of bumbling incompetence and backalley obscenity that both of their careers seemed sure to be over. Kernes not only survived that scandal but was elected mayor a few years later.

    Now the fight over Ukraine's federalization is shaping up to be his last. In late March, as he continued demanding more autonomy for Ukraine's eastern regions, the state re-opened its case against him for alleged kidnapping and torture, which he has always denied. The charges, he says, are part of a campaign against all politicians in Ukraine who support the restoration of civil ties with Russia. "They don't want to listen to reason," he says.

    But one way or another, the country will still have to let its eastern regions to do business with the enemy next door, "because that's where the money is," Kernes says. No matter how much aid Ukraine gets from the IMF and other Western backers, it will not be enough to keep the factories of Kharkov alive. "They'll just be left to rot without our steady clients in Russia." Never mind that those clients may have other plans for Ukraine in mind.

    [May 10, 2015] Battle Tested, Ukraine Troops Now Get U.S. Basic Training

    May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    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.

    ... ... ...

    [May 10, 2015] The New York Times does its government s bidding Here s what you re not being told about US troops in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... 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. ..."
    May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    Reprinted from May 07, 2015 article at Salon.com

    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.

    [May 10, 2015] Obama s Petulant WWII Snub of Russia by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
    "... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
    "... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
    "... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
    "... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
    "... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
    "... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
    May 09, 2015 | antiwar.com
    President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.

    Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.

    Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated – largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.

    Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous insult to the Russian people.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.

    But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would have been much more difficult if not impossible.

    Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.

    For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).

    This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule. From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.

    That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."

    Distorting the History

    So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed, about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed coup in declaring there was no coup.

    The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February 2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]

    Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history."

    Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding conflict.

    For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea." Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.' He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing the region."

    So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.

    Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

    But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014, they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.

    Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."

    You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it. Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.

    The Sole Indispensable Country

    Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.

    That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept. 11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust."

    Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

    More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."

    The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt – and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need anyone's help to win World War II.

    President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s, which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message, a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [May 10, 2015] After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. tried to help Russians

    More correctly Clinton administration vigorously tried to help Russia to became a vassal state...
    April 15, 2015 | antiwar.com
    May 07, 2015 | The Washington Post

    PRESIDENT VLADIMIR Putin recently was interviewed for a fawning Russian television documentary on his decade and a half in power. Putin expressed the view that the West would like Russia to be down at the heels. He said, "I sometimes I get the impression that they love us when they need to send us humanitarian aid. . . . [T]he so-called ruling circles, elites - political and economic - of those countries, they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we come hat in hand. As soon as we start declaring some interests of our own, they feel that there is some element of geopolitical rivalry."

    Earlier, in March, speaking to leaders of the Federal Security Service, which he once led, Mr. Putin warned that "Western special services continue their attempts at using public, nongovernmental and politicized organizations to pursue their own objectives, primarily to discredit the authorities and destabilize the internal situation in Russia."

    Mr. Putin's remarks reflect a deep-seated paranoia. It would be easy to dismiss this kind of rhetoric as intended for domestic consumption, an attempt to whip up support for his war adventure in Ukraine. In part, it is that. But Mr. Putin's assertion that the West has been acting out of a desire to sunder Russia's power and influence is a willful untruth.

    The fact is that thousands of Americans went to Russia hoping to help its people attain a better life. The American and Western effort over the last 25 years - to which the United States and Europe devoted billions of dollars - was aimed at helping Russia overcome the horrid legacy of Soviet communism, which left the country on its knees in 1991. It was not about conquering Russia but rather about saving it, offering the proven tools of market capitalism and democracy, which were not imposed but welcomed. The United States also spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make Russia safer from loose nukes and joined a fruitful collaboration in outer space. Avid volunteers came to Russia and donated endless hours to imparting the lessons of how to hold jury trials, build a free press, design equity markets, carry out political campaigning and a host of other components of an open, prosperous society. The Americans came for the best of reasons.

    Certainly, the Western effort was flawed. Markets were distorted by crony and oligarchic capitalism; democratic practice often faltered; many Russians genuinely felt a sense of defeat, humiliation and exhaustion. There's much to regret but not the central fact that a generous hand was extended to post-Soviet Russia, offering the best of Western values and know-how. The Russian people benefit from this benevolence even now, and, above Mr. Putin's self-serving hysterics, they ought to hear the truth: The United States did not come to bury you.

    Vatnik, 5/7/2015 2:33 PM EDT [Edited]


    I think, that everyoune in US must to know. As i wrote below

    "we think that Navalny & Co paid by the west. they ususally call themselves "opposiotion", and one of them (Nemtsov) was frieinds with McCain (as i realized after reading McCain twitter, after Nemtsov was killed)."

    "we think that our real opposition are these political parties: CPRF, LDPR. We believe them."

    i write it, because i think, that when we talk that our(russian) opposition is bad and paid from the west, you think that we talk about our politic parties. but it is wrong, we talk about Navalny & Co.

    MeriJ, 5/7/2015 3:08 PM EDT [Edited]

    Thanks. That is a useful clarification. But I still find it odd that you would consider a member of your nation's opposition a traitor or "tool" simply because they have friends in the West.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the CPRF/LDPR is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt. Whereas individuals and political parties currently benefiting from the current system think it's fine.

    Those are not the thoughts of a traitor. To get to that conclusion you would need to define the current system and those who currently benefit as being "Russia." Oppose them and you oppose the Motherland.

    But Putin and his new-generation oligarchs and his deputies at the Kremlin are not Russia. They are a bunch of guys who currently run things there.

    Vatnik, 5/7/2015 3:47 PM EDT [Edited]

    "Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main difference between people like Navalny versus the CPRF/LDPR is that Navalny thinks the current system is corrupt."

    CPRF and LPDR know about corruption, and even they think that our non-systemic opposition (Navlny & Co) are traitors. And they (CPRF , LDPR) talk about corruption and another bad things of our gov even in Duma. for example, this is what said the leader of LDPR on one tv show

    "коррупцию создала советская власть, кпсс, единая россия плавно подобрала у нее все инструменты коррупции и сегодня эта страстная болезнь поразила все органы и всю структуру"
    google translated it:
    "Corruption established Soviet power, the Communist Party, United Russia gently picked her all the tools of corruption and now this passionate disease struck all the organs and the whole structure"
    and
    "у вас фракция половина бизнесмены, воры, жулики, грабители, вся остальная половина агенты спецслужб"
    google translated:
    "you have a fraction of a half businessmen, thieves, swindlers, robbers, the rest of the half secret service agents"
    he adressed it to our main politic party in Duma, "United Russia"

    I can find more than one video where he talk about falsifications of elections, right in Duma.

    but these are just examples.

    P.S. oh, and here i found video, specially for you(americans) where our non-systemic opposition visited US Embassy in Moscow in July 4th.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-54U6V-Bc

    Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 12:11 PM EDT [Edited]

    BTW, this is not true that "Americans were not in charge". I red memoirs of Eltsyn's ministers (Korzhakov, Burbulis, you can read memoirs of deputy secretary of state of that time Strobe Talbott in English, the same is there), and it's clear that in 90s Russia de facto was American colony.

    For example, ministers in Russian government could not be assigned without US State Department approval. Even Russian TV anchors were instructed by US representatives.

    Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:05 PM EDT

    MeriJ
    6:42 PM GMT+0300 [Edited]
    Putin has convinced you...


    USA had popularity in Russia in 1990 more than Putin now, but to 1999 when Putin became prime-minister USA had less than 20% approve. It was not Putin who destroyed USA's popularity, reverse your policy created Putin.

    You very often replay this your phrase, but it is lie. Did Putin created NATO, did Putin used Russia's weakness and increased NATO, did Putin bomb Kosovo, did Putin violated agreements that was done after WWII and separated Kosovo from Serbia, did Putin destroyed Russia's democracy in 1996 and in 1993, did Putin paid Chechnya terrorists to kill Russians, did Putin pressure Chechens create Islamic State (prototype of ISIL) in Chechnya, did Putin in any article said that it will be great if terrorists will created their own state (and after that will be do permanent wars against Russia)? NO, you did it before there appeared Putin.

    Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:14 PM EDT

    MeriJ
    5:48 PM GMT+0300
    Much of the aid they are referring to was not lending but grants to help build civil society -- independent media, health organizations and the like. No strings attached.

    You did not created Russia's civil society, you destroyed it when you created did all what was possible to lure high educated Russians in West countries. You falsified Russia's election in 1996 (and all international observers under pressure of USA supported it). You in 1993 supported Yeltsin's military operation in Moscow. You paid Chechnya terrorists to kill Russians and destabilize Russia's society. Is it civil society???

    "independent media"??? Not, they was created by our oligarchs, not by you, and you payed only for those media who represented USA's point of view as your propaganda did in time Cold War. It was the continuing Cold War, not help.

    " health organizations" ??????????????

    USSR's health organizations was significantly better than USA, and infinity better than current Russia's organizations.

    There was not "and like" we ceased Cold War, we by free will dismantled all "USSR's Empire", we by free will destroyed ideology, we ceased war, but you continued it, you continued the war all last 25 years, and NATO is the best example of it.

    MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT

    We lured well-educated Russians to the West? Seriously?

    This is the nature of free markets and open borders. Your response should be to compete to lure them back. Give them something to come home for. Most people long to go home.

    Instead you talk about anyone who doesn't hate the West as if they were traitors. Why would any well-educated Russian ex-pat want to come home now?

    Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:48 PM EDT

    Seriously. Your government created very comfortable ways for engineers (and for some another categories of USSR's people), to take them on West. You are economist, so I suppose you know the reception: lure good manager from another company, it will increase your power, and it decrease power of your competitor.

    MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:51 PM EDT [Edited]

    By "seriously?" I didn't mean I disagreed with your facts. I disagree that this was surprising or hostile. That is the nature of open markets -- if you see excellence, you try to recruit it.

    There are only two responses I know of: Close your borders and your markets; or compete more effectively.


    MeriJ, 5/7/2015 12:20 PM EDT

    You are truly incorrect, my friend, and it saddens me that you see it this way.

    The antagonistic relationship you describe is more true at the moment, due to the events of the last year, but not true back in the decades before that. During the Cold War, we were indeed enemies, so such motivations then were a given.

    Skeviz, 5/7/2015 12:24 PM EDT

    Ok, then try to explain, why USA had more 80% [popularity in polls] in Russia in 1990 and less than 20% in 1999. There was not Putin, how can you explain it?

    Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 12:27 PM EDT [Edited]

    He is correct. One can say that Cold War never ended - it just took place for some decades on our land in form of guerilla war. After Gorbachev and Yeltsin abandoned all interests of USSR and Russia you decided to press the advantage and to take Russia of the board [permanently]. Is it so big surprise that we are angry about it?

    Joseph Volgin, 5/7/2015 11:01 AM EDT

    Alert! Attention, danger! Putin trolls get into American journalism:

    "...Or, as a Fred Hiatt of the 1870s might have commented about Native Americans who resisted the well-intentioned Bureau of Indian Affairs and didn't appreciate the gentleness of the U.S. Army or the benevolence of life on the reservations: "Above Sitting Bull's self-serving hysterics, Indians ought to hear the truth: The white man did not come to exterminate you."

    Baranovsly71, 5/7/2015 8:22 AM EDT

    Thank you, but I lived in Russia in 90s and remember very well Americans who started to come at that time - arrogant money-grabbers the only thing they were interested in is how to make money - on everything, from oil to export of Russian children to US. They stole billions from Russians and continue to do so.

    Please, Americans, don't help us - go away and take your democracy with you.

    Bob Bobo, 5/7/2015 7:51 AM EDT

    Russia help? Yes like that Khodorkovsky Yukos submitted on a silver platter Rothschild. It would Americans like it if they can plunder the Russian mineral resources. But when Putin to allow such a persona non grata.

    Larysa Mahal, 5/7/2015 6:30 AM EDT

    The best article for those who do not know history and events in Russia. I think a lot of people feel a tears of emotion when they read this article. Bravo!

    When author quotes Putin's speech "they love us when we are impoverished, poor and when we come hat in hand." he has forgotten to say that after these words Putin thanked all those who helped to Russia in its difficult time. Author has forgotten to give example about free help "devoted billions of dollars". Nothing was free and Russia had to pay if not money then the disadvantages agreements or concessions. But oh well it. Talk about a paranoia. Author calls the leader of the biggest country "paranoid". But this man has stood up Russia from knees during 15 years only. Think about it 15 years only! Author calls "paranoid" the man who are supported by 75 % population in Russia. The man who was addressed Crimea, insisting on joining with Russia. Are all of these people paranoid like Putin?

    Then you can say about President of Poland who sad that the Victory Parade in Moscow is a threaten to all Europe. What is it, paranoia in a cube? But author does not see that because for him to write articles is a work but to know truth is for domestic use only.

    I want to ask everybody to see around and say how many prosperous, beautiful countries in Europe face before a threaten to be section, detached some parts like UK, Italy. But to Russia with her "paranoid" leader want and join huge territories with huge amount of people. Think about it. In last year one man standing in a long queue on the sea crossing from Crimea to Russia sad that they are willing to endure all the inconveniences because the main thing is they are with Russia. Think about it.

    Lucky_Barker, 5/7/2015 5:45 AM EDT [Edited]

    The United States supported the destruction and burning of the parliament in Moscow, the murder of civilians in 1993, the bombing of Grozny in 1994-1995-m, and the killing of civilians in Chechnya. All crimes Yeltsin was American influence and American advices.

    It's very like the oficial America. Manu people call "Yeltsin era" as "Time of Americans" or "Time of Prostitutes".

    Restoration of parliamentary democracy, Mr. Putin did not like top US.
    Putin's war in Chechnya without massive bombing did not like owners of US newspapers and US parties.

    The Chechens believe that the Americans supported Yeltsin genocide Chechen civilians in 1nd Chechen war and strongly resent and hate peace in Chechnya after the 2nd Chechen war.

    Tsarnaev was prepared in US as a terrorist for Syria or Chechnya - but was shot too early.

    We must always remember that Al Qaeda and الدّولة الإسلاميّة at an early stage was the US-Saudi projects.

    Volkovolk, 5/7/2015 5:24 AM EDT [

    What a hipocrisity.
    Your "volunters" with their "proven tools" provoked desolation of russian economy and defolt. The results of their actions were nothing short of economical genocide. The so-called free press you build are just a puppets of yours, instruments of your influence and of your lies. Your advises in building of democracy led to anarchy and to the brink of collapse of Russia. Yes, you tried to bury us. Guess what? You failed. And we will never forgive you.

    Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 5:19 AM EDT

    But past wrongs do not matter... now Russia and the USA on the brink of war... the war is already at a distance of 600 kilometers from Moscow, the American puppets killed thousands of ethnic Russians.

    Russia is a nuclear power, such action is suicide. We all have to prevent needless and stupid war... I ask you to help.

    Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:56 AM EDT

    4) Let the author will call the name of at least one program, which spent a billion dollars... which would have improved the lives of ordinary Russians. At least one program (I don't know, although he lived in Russia at that time). All American billion were used to purchase depreciating assets industry of the USSR ("privatization"), actually looting people.

    5) "Thousands of activists and volunteers" were actually thousands of Yeltsin's advisers... it was on the advice of these advisers was launched economic programme "shock therapy" (economic Holocaust). When Federal employees and the military is not specifically paid a salary (although the money was) ... a few years (to reduce the money supply), the economy was dead, just do not have the money, the base rate of the Central Bank was 2000% (I'm not kidding)... people were hungry... you know what hunger is? I know... The country was falling apart, if not for Putin.
    6) Free press this is the press... which is verbatim from CNN, BBC, Foxnews? What is its "freedom" of this media?

    7) the Oligarchs, corrupt officials... and who brought them to power, who collaborated with them, who gave them money to purchase assets? American corporations...

    P. S. I don't know why the author is lying, but I would never wish the Americans in the US... to experience the poverty and hopelessness... you have experienced the Russians in the 90-ies in Russia, when the US "gave us a hand"...

    Danila Ivanov, 5/7/2015 4:26 AM EDT

    I accuse the author of lying... and paid propaganda.
    1) Russia is satisfied with the U.S. government only when it is weak. In 1993 Boris Yeltsin ordered to shoot from tanks to the Parliament (similar to the U.S. Congress) killed many people-elected deputies, and unarmed people in the square who came to support the deputies, they were killed at close range with machine guns. Hundreds of corpses.... NO ONE representative of the United States, has condemned the event. Nobody. Everything is fine, democracy!!!
    The author of the article is lying. Putin is telling the truth.
    2) Almost all non-governmental organizations of Russia officially get the money of US taxpayers. Their leaders defiantly go to the American Embassy. (in other 196 embassies of the countries of the world don't go)... and declare that their goal is "revolution and overthrow the President." Opposition leaders Russia (Navalny, Nemtsov, Kasparov, Chirikov, Ponomarev) was trained in the U.S. and regularly travel to the USA... (for example ... Imagine the leaders of "Occupy Wall Street" would have officially get money from the Russians, and walked to the Russian Embassy. Presented? ) The author is lying, Putin is not lying.
    3) There is No "military adventure in Ukraine." Lies about "Russian aggression" hides that Ukraine is a civil war and the destruction and arrests of thousands of unarmed ethnic Russians (they inhabit the East of Ukraine)... who disagree with an armed overthrow of the President. Near the border of Russia (31 km) is a major Ukrainian city Kharkiv... it unguarded, why in Kharkov there are no "hordes of Russian troops or the rebels?... If Putin attacked the Ukraine and began a military adventure"?
    The author lied again.

    Owan Skirlan, 5/7/2015 3:20 AM EDT

    Okay, dear Americans, thanks for fish and sort of that, but, really - Make Your Own Buisness! Somethere between US borders, not out

    Brekotin, 5/7/2015 1:07 AM EDT

    Very funny article. Washington PRAVDA!
    to author: please check the graph of GDP in Russia and the United States 1985-2015.
    Clearly shows how redistribute wealth of the USSR was reditributed.

    P.S.: teach macroeconomics and history.

    Andrey Belov, 5/7/2015 12:39 AM EDT

    I by the way I wonder what is so wrong left Russia communism? Developed industry and agriculture, United state, connected in the common economic space, a powerful culture and the arts, advanced science, the successful solution of social problems. And against that you have spent billions to destroy all? Lord you Americans really believe that we should be grateful for assistance in the destruction of our country?

    Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:48 PM EDT

    "After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. tried to help Russians"
    Really???
    - USA in 1990 had popularity 80%, but to 1999 (before Putin) USA had popularity 20% in Russia, is it because USA had tried help Russia? (De facto USA did all what was possible to create politician like Putin).
    - USSR had dismissed Warsaw pact by free will (and USSR dismissed USSR by free will), USSR destroyed all what was linked to Cold War, did USA the same? Did USA dismissed NATO?
    - USA used Russia's weakness and increased NATO (now hypocrite Americans say that it was done by will of those countries, interesting enough do they really believe in the BS? USSR could also said that E. Europe's countries became ally of USSR because they was afraid Germany).
    - USA used Russia's weakness and attacked Serbia the Russia's ally (hypocrite Americans said that there was ethnic cleansing, BUT USA killed more men there than Milosevic did, moreover after war created by USA there was new ethnic cleansing and Albanians killed Serbians, why hypocrite Americans closed eyes about it?). In day when USA began war against Kosovo they loss all support that had between youth.
    - USA payed Chechnya terrorists and USA do great media support to Chechnya terrorists (after 11 September 2001 it was ceased but to the time was killed many Russia's humans including children, now hypocrite Americans prefer do not remember which media support they did for creation Islamic State on Russia's south border, it was prototype of ISIL).
    - USA used Russia's weakness and dismissed all agreements that interfere create anti-missile system.
    - USA destroyed Russia's democracy when supported falsification of election 1996 in Russia, because USA was afraid communists in Russia, and preferred support Yeltsin. USA violated election and supported Yeltsin, who had destroying Russia.
    - USA paid for many color revolutions on Russia's borders.

    Skeviz, 5/6/2015 11:59 PM EDT

    • - USA instead to help Russia create new economy preferred create more easy way to emigration high educated Russians in USA and another Europe's countries.
    • - USA separated Kosovo (and destroyed all system of agreements that existed after WWII, now hypocrite Americans try show that it was did in Crimea, but really Russia did nothing that USA had not make in Serbia).
    • - When Putin began pressure Russia's oligarchs to pay salaries and taxes, USA began media war against Putin.

    I could continue the list very long, but I have not time now.
    So all USA's sayings about "trying to help Russia" is hypocrite lie from alpha to omega. All what wanted USA destroy country that they had afraid half century. USA didn't use Russians free will and trying end Cold War, USA continued it and I can suppose it will be great problem for USA in future. Certainly Russia is weak country now, but Russia can give very significant help to China, especially in military question (if China will be need use power, but do not show that they use power).

    Irene Guy, 5/6/2015 9:34 PM EDT

    "For fifty years, our policy was to fence in the Soviet Union while its own internal contradictions undermined it. For thirty years, our policy has been to draw out the People's Republic of China. As a result, the China of today is simply not the Soviet Union of the late 1940s"
    Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State
    Remarks to National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
    New York City
    September 21, 2005"
    Enough said...

    [May 08, 2015] Obamas Real Motive Behind The Iran Deal A Backdoor Channel To Sell Weapons To Saudi Arabia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Cooperation and coordination between China and Russia are needed to maintain the international balance of power and preserve the post-war world order. The participation of the leaders of the two countries in mutual events dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Victory in World War II indicates that Russia and China, as the largest countries in the world and members of the United Nations, intend to maintain international order. ..."
    May 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    For a long time there was confusion about the "quo" to the Saudi Arabian "quid" over its agreement to side with the US on the Iranian "nuclear deal" (which incidentally looks like it will never happen simply due to the Russian and Chinese UN vetoes).

    Then over the weekend we finally got the answer thanks to the the WSJ, which reported that "Gulf States want U.S. assurances and weapons in exchange for supporting Iran nuclear deal."

    The details are quite familiar to anyone who has seen the US Military-Industrial Complex in action: the US pretends to wage an aggressive diplomatic campaign of peace while behind the scenes it is just as actively selling weapons of war.

    Leading Persian Gulf states want major new weapons systems and security guarantees from the White House in exchange for backing a nuclear agreement with Iran, according to U.S. and Arab officials.

    The leaders of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, plan to use a high-stakes meeting with President Barack Obama next week to request additional fighter jets, missile batteries and surveillance equipment.

    They also intend to pressure Mr. Obama for new defense agreements between the U.S. and the Gulf nations that would outline terms and scenarios under which Washington would intervene if they are threatened by Iran, according to these officials.

    The Persian Gulf countries say they need more drones, surveillance equipment and missile-defense systems to combat an Iranian regime they see as committed to becoming the region's dominant power. The Gulf states also want upgraded fighter jets to contain the Iranian challenge, particularly the advanced F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter.

    A senior U.S. official played down chances that the administration would agree to sell advanced systems such as the F-35 fighter to those nations-though the planes will be sold to Israel and Turkey-because of concerns within the administration about altering the military balance in the Middle East.v

    There is much more but a question already emerges: why does the "Gulf Cooperation Council" need so many ultramodern weapons to "defend" against an Iran which is supposedly halting its nuclear program and is in the process of showing its allegiance to the west by endorsing a peace process.

    Unless it was all merely a ruse to arm the Middle East from the very beginning?

    And now the "end" is near because when it comes to matters of revenue and profitability for the US Military-Industrial complex, seek and ye shall find. According to Reuters, "Obama is expected to make a renewed U.S. push next week to help Gulf allies create a region-wide defense system to guard against Iranian missiles as he seeks to allay their anxieties over any nuclear deal with Tehran, according to U.S. sources."

    The offer could be accompanied by enhanced security commitments, new arms sales and more joint military exercises, U.S. officials say, as Obama tries to reassure Gulf Arab countries that Washington is not abandoning them.

    Not only is Obama not abandoning "them", but the entire Iran "negotiations" farce increasingly appears to have been produced from the very beginning to give the US a diplomatic loophole with which to arm the biggest oil exporter in the world. Sure enough:

    Gulf Arab neighbors, including key U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, worry that Iran will not be deterred from a nuclear bomb and will be flush with cash from unfrozen assets to fund proxies and expand its influence in countries such as Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.

    U.S. officials with knowledge of the internal discussions concede that Obama is under pressure to calm Arab fears by offering strengthened commitments. "It's a time to see what things might be required to be formalized," a senior U.S. official said.

    All of this should come as a surprise to precisely nobody as the US takes advantage of its waning years as a global hegemon, and seeks to sell US weapons far and wide to the benefit of a select few Raytheon, General Dynamics and Lockheed shareholders.

    And yet something peculiar emerges: in the Reuters piece we read that "Obama is all but certain to stop short of a full security treaty with Saudi Arabia or other Gulf nations as that would require approval by the Republican-controlled Senate and risk stoking tensions with Washington's main Middle East ally Israel."

    Which brings up another interesting regional player: Israel. Because while we now know the real reason for Saudi's complicity in the Iran "nuclear deal", a key middle east player is none other than Israel, which under Netanyahu's control has puffed and huffed against the Iran deal, and yet has done nothing. Why? Here Bloomberg provides some very critical perspective which introduces yet another major player in the global military exports arena.

    Russia.

    Bloomberg has the details:

    Last month, when President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced plans to sell a powerful anti-missile system to Iran before the lifting of international sanctions, Israel was quick to join the U.S. in expressing shock and anger.

    But behind the public announcements is a little-known web of arms negotiations and secret diplomacy. In recent years, Israel and Russia have engaged in a complex dance, with Israel selling drones to Russia while remaining conspicuously neutral toward Ukraine and hoping to stave off Iranian military development. The dance may not be over.

    ...

    One of those issues is Israel's neutrality toward Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists have waged war over the past year. Israel has held back from selling weapons to the government in Kiev, which is backed by the U.S. and European Union, in the hope of keeping Russia's S-300s away from Iran.... "Israel has come under a lot of pressure for not joining the all-Western consensus on the Ukrainian crisis," said Sarah Feinberg, a research fellow at Tel Aviv's Institute for National Security Studies. "It was a difficult decision for the Israeli government, which was concerned about possible Russian retaliatory moves in the Mideast - such as selling the S-300 to Iran."

    The issue at hand is the delivery of Israeli drones: whether to Ukraine, where such a deal was recently scuttled following internal dissent by opposition within the Israel government, or to Russia, which already has received Israel UAVs.

    Russia expressed interest in buying Israeli drones after coming up against them during the 2008 war with Georgia. In 2010 Russia concluded a deal to purchase 15 of them from IAI, and to set up a joint venture to produce drone technology.

    An Israeli familiar with the matter said the drone deal with Russia carried an unwritten quid pro quo: It would proceed only if the Kremlin suspended its announced S-300 sale to Iran. Now having gotten the Israeli technology, the Israeli said, that promise is no longer a factor in Russian considerations.

    In other words, now that Israel - which is the world's largest exporter of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - no longer has leverage over Russian military needs as Moscow has long ago reverse-engineered the Israeli technology, Israel may have no choice but to provoke Russia in the middle east.

    "Sending drones or other arms to Ukraine would be an ineffective, even inconsequential Israeli response to Russia selling the S-300s to Iran," said Feinberg. More effective, she said, would be for Israel to lift its political neutrality on the Ukrainian conflict, or take actions in the Middle East against Russian regional allies such as the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

    For now however, Israel's full on engagement in Syria (or Iran) appears to have been prevented: "On April 23 Russia did appear to backtrack somewhat on its earlier announcement of the S-300 sale to Iran, with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov telling the Interfax news agency that delivery won't occur soon, and would only happen after political and legal issues were resolved. In his April 16 call-in show on Russian television, Putin acknowledged that Israeli objections had scuttled a potential S-300 sale to another Mideast nation, reportedly Syria."

    To attempt a summary: under the pretext of Iran negotiations for peace, the US is preparing to quietly arm virtually all Gulf states with the latest US military technology, even as Israel has given Russia some of its latest drone technology which means Russia may at any moment proceed to arm Iran and Syria with modern Surface to Air missiles, while Israel is contemplaring retaliation not only against Iran but Syria as well: the country which nearly led to a global proxy war in the mdidle east in the summer of 2013.

    In other words, we have, for the past few years, been on the edge of a razor thin Middle Eastern balance of power equilibrium which prevented any one nation or alliance from garnering an outsized influence of military power.

    All of that is about to change the moment the MIC figurehead known as president Obama greenlights the dispatch of billions of dollars in fighters, drones, missile batteries, and surveillance equipment to Saudi Arabia and its peers, in the process dramatically reshaping the balance of power status quo and almost certainly leading to yet another middle eastern war which will inevitably drag in not only Israel and Russia at least in a proxy capacity, but ultimately, the US as well.

    Just as the US military industrial complex wanted.

    Because as every Keynesian fanatic will tell you: in a world saturated by debt, and where organic growth is no longer possible, there is only one remaining option.

    War.

    * * *

    And just to assure the required outcome, moments ago John Kerry arrived in Riyadh to conclude the deal.

    Kerry arrives in Riyadh #Saudi Arabia.

    pic.twitter.com/2CPIP69Ut0

    - Conflict News (@rConflictNews) May 6, 2015

    Pool Shark

    Why do they need a 'backdoor,' when they've been selling arms to the Saudis through the front door since time began?...

    Skateboarder

    Barry insists there be a backdoor, for uh, personal reasons.

    Looney

    Reggie Love: Did I hear "Backdoor Channel"? ;-)

    weburke

    the real question is how does Israel view it. Netanyahu has not endorsed any of this. I would guess Israel has no friend in Obama and his controllers, and will soon take action of their own.

    What possible gain is it for Israel to have the fucking tyrant insane neighbors get all armed up? hello war.

    Oh regional Indian

    This is very good insight.

    Bastids...

    By the way, India is totally thumbing it's nose at the US led non-coalition of the unwilling in continuing to deal with Iran for all manner of goods and services. Big barter deals, gold payments via Turkey for oil...

    So there is that going on in Iran's Eastern flank. Iran, by the way, was rumored to have a "Perfect Plate" from the US mint via Henry Kissinger (or some spook) and during Shah of Iran time were the world's largest counterfeiters of the USD, only thing, they had a perfect Plate. Obviously CIA controlled.

    All that money, EuroDollars, Petrodollars....black money, drug dollars (Iran is a major heroine transit point).

    Nothing is as it seems...

    Sequence 15 for discerning ears ;-)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP4NGb8HJbk

    jdtexas

    Simply idiotic war propaganda

    Jumbotron

    Reagan just called from the grave. He wants his Iran Contra back.

    F0ster

    PetroDollar = Defending Saudi Arabia with US military.

    PetroDollar now collpasing thanks to Russia, China, Iran which forces Saudi Arabia to spend their USD's with the MIC to defend themselves.

    Endgame for the PetroDollar system.

    Mike Masr

    The backdoor, wasn't this the aircraft used to covertly bring all the Saudi's back home on 911 when all the other aircraft were grounded?

    TahoeBilly2012

    Anyone with a brain could guess the Iran deal was always a scam of some sort. Why? Well, because everything is a scam from these people and there is no peace, ever, not the goal. It amazes me the rest of the world even engages with the Zionist shitshow called the USA.

    Anunnaki

    President Peace Prize needs MOAR war in the Middle East before he "leaves" office. He is at proxy war (for now) with Russia. That was quite a feat so:

    Why not take on Iran while he is at it. Two birds with one big stone and all that.

    Bill of Rights

    Hmm is this like the Clinton China for Arms deal...Face it folks all US Politicians are scum of the earth, sum are just more scummy than the others.

    Kaiser Sousa

    Cooperation between Russia and China is necessary to maintain the balance of power in the world, China's Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Cheng Guoping said Monday.

    The high-ranking Chinese diplomat said that Russian-Chinese relations had reached a new level of development and the forthcoming visit of Xi Jinping to Moscow would facilitate further cooperation between Beijing and Moscow. The Chinese president will pay a three-day visit to Moscow on May 8-10, attending the Victory Day Parade on May 9 at the invitation of Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Cooperation and coordination between China and Russia are needed to maintain the international balance of power and preserve the post-war world order. The participation of the leaders of the two countries in mutual events dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the Victory in World War II indicates that Russia and China, as the largest countries in the world and members of the United Nations, intend to maintain international order."

    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150504/1021703550.html#ixzz3ZCuelpFm

    Farmer Joe in Brooklyn

    9/11 exposed the unholy alliance between the US and the Saudis (for anyone with enough intellectual curiosity to seek the truth). This true axis of evil has a symbiotic relationship that knows no moral bounds.

    Nothing new here...

    Monty Burns

    In 9/11 the Saudis provided the finance and the patsies. The event was organized by Mossad and Ziocons in the USA.


    juicy_bananas

    Just in time for next year's SOFEX, bitchez! The war economy has to get paper somehow. Peace Prizes for EVERYBODY!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL_3Qg-SADY

    g'kar

    2010: "US Congress notified over $60bn arms sale to Saudi Arabia"

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/21/us-congress-notified-arms-s...

    They didn't backdoor that sale. Whatever President Jarret is trying to sell, it isn't to the Saudi's.


    Jacksons Ghost

    Anyone that thinks the House of Saud will go quietly is fooling themselves. We sell them out, how quickly will they pivot towards China and Russia. We abandon The House of Saud, you can guarentee that they will abandon the Dollar. Reserve Status of Dollar is most important to our money printers...

    falak pema

    No amount of US material will save the Sunni Kingdoms from their fate, as the bigger the Military spending becomes the bigger the millstone of its proliferation to its enemies grow.

    Iran will play the same game of attrition, feeding the enemies of their strategic enemy, and guerrilla warfare that Giap and Ho Chi Minh did.

    Remember Vietnam, USA, the cancer of opposition now runs deep in the region on all fronts and it will feed the instability of an ivory towered kingdom like poison ivy wrapping itself around the healthy tree.

    The spiral is now a sign of runaway MIC malinvestment of huge proportions. Those Sauds will never have an army to match their rivals, who are as hungry as the hounds of hell and fed by the kingdom's never-ending and obscurantist fed hubris. Guns didn't save South Vietnam.

    How do you avoid the same blowback that Nam has demonstrated?

    Same corruption, same endgame now being concocted in a region that goes from Paki to deep Africa?

    The kiss of the US MIC is the kiss of death to its allies.

    Saud at the cross roads-- cut and run-- or stay US suppot like Nam.

    g3h

    nyt

    Sale of U.S. Arms Fuels the Wars of Arab States

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/world/middleeast/sale-of-us-arms-fuels...

    One World Mafia

    You're leaving out two very important parts of the proxy war situation. Russia forced Syria to give up her chemical weapon defenses which led to the US & its brothers in the Brotherhood of Darkness Gulf Cooperation Council to use their proxy, ISIS, to pounce on Syria.

    Remember what happened with MINSK? The breakaway republics were pressured to give up their gains since September.

    Not very good for the balance of powers. The Brotherhood of Darkness won't need a real WW3 to get what they want.

    RichardParker

    These guys (MIC) are going to make a fucking killing. No pun intended. The whole video is excellent. Here are some highlights;

    [May 08, 2015] - It's Official The U.S. Collaborates With Al Qaeda

    May 6, 2015 | M of A

    The propaganda against Syria is milking the capture of Idlib city by Jabhat al-Nusra and assorted other Islamist groups. The general tone is "Assad is losing" illogically combined with a demand that the U.S. should now bomb the Syrian government troops. Why would that be necessary if the Syrian government were really losing control?

    A prime example comes via Foreign Policy from Charles Lister, an analyst from Brooking Doha, which is paid with Qatari money but often cooperating with the Obama administration. That headline declares that Assad is losing and the assault on Idlib is lauded in the highest tone. Then the piece admits that this small victory against retreating Syrian troops was only possible because AlQaeda was leading in the assault.

    The piece admits that the U.S. which wants to balance between AlQaeda and the Syrian government forces prolonging the conflict in the hope that both sides will lose, was behind that move:

    The involvement of FSA groups, in fact, reveals how the factions' backers have changed their tune regarding coordination with Islamists. Several commanders involved in leading recent Idlib operations confirmed to this author that the U.S.-led operations room in southern Turkey, which coordinates the provision of lethal and non-lethal support to vetted opposition groups, was instrumental in facilitating their involvement in the operation from early April onwards. That operations room - along with another in Jordan, which covers Syria's south - also appears to have dramatically increased its level of assistance and provision of intelligence to vetted groups in recent weeks.

    Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called "vetted groups," but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.

    The U.S. led operations room encouraged cooperation between the Islamists of the so called Fee Syrian Army and AlQaeda. A U.S. drone, shot down over Latakia in March, was gathering intelligence for the AlQaeda attack on Idlib. More that 600 TOW U.S. anti-tank missiles have been used against Syrian troops in north Syria. These are part of the 14,000 the Saudis had ordered from the U.S. producer.

    Even if the U.S., as now admitted, would not officially urge its mercenaries to cooperate with Jabhat al-Nusra such cooperation was always obvious to anyone who dared to look:

    In southern Syria [..] factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.

    The reality is that the directly U.S. supported, equipped and paid "moderate" Fee Syrian Army Jihadi mercenaries are just as hostile to other sects as the AlQaeda derivative Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State. They may not behead those who they declare to be unbelievers but they will kill them just as much.

    While the U.S. is nurturing AlQaeda in Syria, Turkey is taking care of the Islamic State. Tons of Ammonium Sulfate, used to make road side bombs, is "smuggled" from Turkey to the Islamic State under official eyes. Turkish recruiters incite Muslims from the Turkman Uighur people in west China and from Tajikistan to emigrate to the Islamic State. They give away Turkish passports to allow those people to travel to Turkey from where they reach Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile the Saudis bomb everyone and everything in Yemen except the cities and areas captured by AlQaeda in the Arab Peninsula.

    The U.S. and its allies are now in full support of violent Sunni Jihadists throughout the Middle East. At the same time they use the "threat of AlQaeda" to fearmonger and suppress opposition within their countries.

    Charles Lister and the other Brooking propagandists want the U.S. to bomb Syria to bring the Assad government to the table to negotiate. But who is the Syrian government to negotiate with? AlQaeda?

    Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported "moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?

    Who comes up with such phantasies?

    Posted by b on May 6, 2015 at 03:37 AM | Permalink

    lacilir | May 6, 2015 4:06:19 AM | 2

    As Ed Husain stated back in 2012:

    The Syrian rebels would be immeasurably weaker today without al-Qaeda in their ranks. By and large, Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions are tired, divided, chaotic, and ineffective. Feeling abandoned by the West, rebel forces are increasingly demoralized as they square off with the Assad regime's superior weaponry and professional army. Al-Qaeda fighters, however, may help improve morale. The influx of jihadis brings discipline, religious fervor, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.
    http://www.cfr.org/syria/al-qaedas-specter-syria/p28782

    The US seems to have fully embraced this reality.

    radiator | May 6, 2015 5:06:01 AM | 4

    To the US and other western governments in that area ;) it probably does not matter too much, who rules "Syria", as long as they don't own any serious military hardware.

    I'm not an expert ;) but looking at the past three years, my conclusion about the goals of the "west" would be: support the local militias just as much that they can destroy as many tanks, helis, air defence and aircraft as possible.

    Ideally, have them use up all the anti-tank weapons we give them, so, when they've "won", they're sitting on rubble with nothing but handguns.

    A second goal, maybe more of the regional enemies, would obviously be to drive out of the "former syrian territory" all non-sunni population. Severe the head of one, have 1000 flee to elsewhere...

    Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 9:43:48 AM | 8

    Re: @Anonymous@5

    Well, that about does it. The U.S is completely deranged and there's no hope.

    There is always hope. Russia, China, and Iran know they come next in the list if they don't stop Al-Qaeda hydra in Syria/Iraq et al. Russian intelligence has declared ISIS a threat for Russia, the Chinese have been battling the Uighurs for long time now, and now they are being trained by the US to become a fifth-column on their return to China. Iran is in the surroundings, and have been preparing ever since the war with Iraq for a military maelstrom of gigantic proportions.

    Idlib was taken by a coalition of taqfiris renamed "Army of Conquest," the same coalition getting ready to fight Hezbollah in the Qalamoun barrens facing Lebanon, for control of the heights that open to the Bekaa Valley. Shaykh Hassan Nasrallah declared a couple of days ago the battle for Qalamoun has reached high noon, and its start won't be announced.

    On the taking of Idlib he stated any war is a pendulum with battles lost and won, and dismissed the propaganda war b has just denounced as part of the psy-op war. The onslaught suffering by Syria is flabbergasting, with US/Turkey training 15 thousand more taqfiris to throw into the war, the purpose, Nasrallah denounced, is to keep the Axis of Resistance, and in general the Arab war, in a 100 year war.

    What we are seeing now, the dismembering of Iraq, the war of attrition on Syria, the destruction of Libya, the bombing of Yemen, the attack on Lebanon, was planned long ago by the neocons as a strategy for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It is all there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc., are perks that came as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm">http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm">https://web.archive.org/web/20140125123844/http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

    ToivoS | May 6, 2015 1:39:12 PM | 16
    The most effective resistance against Israel consisted of broad coalitions consisting of Christian, secular and Islamic groups. These were the panArab organizations inspired by Nasser and given substance in the Palestinian resistance by the PLO. Israel knew this was a problem. That is why they supported Hamas in the late 1970s when it first appeared. They quite explicitly supported Hamas in order to undermine the PLO. That has proven very effective in splitting Palestinian resistance into two warring camps centered respectively in Gaza and the West Bank.

    The US has discovered this formula. That is why we continue to support the Islamist groups who are more interested in killing fellow Muslims rather than fighting against Israel. It is quite amazing that Al qaida, ISIS or whatever handle they carry these days has never attacked an Israeli target.

    As we all know Al nusra today in Southern Syria is being actively supported by the Israeli military in the form of medical, "humanitarian" aid and the occasional bombing raid against the Syrian army. US and Israeli support for these terrorist Islamic forces is so transparent that what is puzzling is why this has not been exposed in the western media.

    Editors and reporters must know this stuff and are deliberately avoiding these stories.

    okie farmer | May 6, 2015 2:03:18 PM | 17
    ToivoS, actually Hamas was created by Shin Bet. And you draw a very accurate picture The US has discovered this formula. Yep.
    g_h | May 6, 2015 2:28:26 PM | 18
    @8-@10:

    Doc 1: http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/Clean_Break.pdf

    Doc 2: http://zfacts.com/zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/1996_12_Wurmser_Crumbling_Iraq.pdf

    Andoheb | May 6, 2015 3:15:21 PM | 19
    Wonder if Harry Truman's comment after Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 applies to current US Mideast policies. To paraphrase if the Germans are winning we should help the Russians, if the Russians are winning we should help the Germans. That way let them kill as many as possible
    Lone Wolf | May 6, 2015 3:16:07 PM | 20 @g_h@18@
    Thanks! Those two are key documents to understand the current drive of the aptly baptized "Empire of Chaos" and its minions.
    Zico | May 6, 2015 3:53:36 PM | 21
    The word AL-CIADA's lost it's scary factor in the West.. It's almost become acceptable/mainstream word... These days, Western journos refer to them in different terms, depending on the circumstances and location. How times change!!!
    • In Syria they're referred to as "rebels", "militants","Assad's opponent" and the best one "moderate Islamists".
    • In Iraq, they're referred to as "Sunni rebels", "oppressed Sunni fighters" etc.
    • In Yemen AL_CIADA's knowns as "president" Hadi's forces, "Sunni rebels"

    It gets to to point where you just wonder if these people scripting the "news" must really think the rest of us simpletons are so stupid not to notice the contradictions...

    We now have Western journos doing free propaganda for AL-CIADA :)

    GoraDiva | May 6, 2015 4:02:56 PM | 22
    More NYT propaganda on Syria? Well, it's A. Barnard...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html

    john | May 6, 2015 4:08:06 PM | 23
    b says:

    Who would win should the Syrian government really lose the war or capitulate? The U.S. supported "moderate rebels" Islamist, who could not win against the Syrian government, would then take over and defeat AlQaeda and the Islamic State?

    Who comes up with such phantasies?

    the guys from General Electric, Honeywell, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumann, etc... and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Luca K | May 6, 2015 4:22:13 PM | 24
    Good article by B. The following is nothing new, but adds more to what we already know, i.e, israeli cooperation with al-ciada terrorists.

    Article from 2 days ago. http://www.mintpressnews.com/israel-fuels-the-syrian-crisis-with-aid-to-al-qaida-rebels/205262/

    lysias | May 6, 2015 4:55:30 PM | 25
    Price of oil has been rising. FT: Dollar under pressure as oil keeps rising (subscription required).
    Christoph (German) | May 6, 2015 4:56:51 PM | 26
    Lone Wolf said: "What we are seeing now ... was planned long ago by the neocons as a strategy for Israel, in a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." It is all there, the rest, like the dismemberment of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, etc., are perks that came as they unfolded the strategy for destruction of the Arab/Muslim world."

    It was also contemplated 140 years ago by Pike: "The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other".

    http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike2.htm

    I doubt that this old scheme to eliminate independent cultures will succeed - there is more awareness and heavenly input today than could be envisioned in the 19th century.

    [May 06, 2015] Clinton Cash: errors dog Bill and Hillary exposé – but is there any 'there' there? by Ed Pilkington

    May 05, 2015 | The Guardian

    In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper, the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn't "nailed" his thesis. "It's hard for any author to nail it – one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me as an author that is impossible to meet," he replied.

    ... ... ...

    Certainly, pundits were warning about the problem of the large sums of money flowing into the Clinton Foundation's coffers even before Hillary Clinton took up her position as Obama's global emissary-in-chief. A month before she became secretary of state, the Washington Post warned in an editorial that her husband's fundraising activities were problematic. "Even if Ms Clinton is not influenced by gifts to her husband's charity, the appearance of conflict is unavoidable."

    Since the foundation was formed in 2001, some $2bn has been donated, mainly in big lump sums. Fully a third of the donors giving more than $1m, and more than a half of those handing over more than $5m, have been foreign governments, corporations or tycoons. (The foundation stresses that such largesse has been put to very good use – fighting obesity around the globe, combating climate change, helping millions of people with HIV/Aids obtain antiretroviral drugs at affordable prices.)

    Schweizer may have made mistakes about aspects of Bill Clinton's fees on the speaker circuit, but one of his main contentions – that the former president's rates skyrocketed after his wife became secretary of state – is correct. Politifact confirmed that since leaving the White House in 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches for which he commanded more than $500,000; all but two of those mega-money earners occurred in the period when Hillary was at the State Department.

    Though Schweizer has failed to prove actual corruption in the arrangement – at no point in the book does he produce evidence showing that Bill's exorbitant speaker fees were directly tied to policy concessions from Hillary – he does point to several glaring conflicts of interest. Bill Clinton did accept large speaker fees accumulating to more than $1m from TD Bank, a major shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline, at precisely the time that the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton within it, was wrestling with the vexed issue of whether to approve it.

    It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

    Such awkward collisions between Bill's fundraising activities and Hillary's public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast rightwing conspiracy. Take Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham university who has written extensively on political corruption in the US.

    Teachout, who last year stood against Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic party nomination for New York governor, points out that you don't have to be able to prove quid pro quo for alarm bells to ring. "Our whole system of rules is built upon the concept that you must prevent conflicts of interests if you are to resist corruption in its many forms. Conflicts like that can infect us in ways we don't even see."

    Teachout said that the Clintons presented the US political world with a totally new challenge. "We have never had somebody running for president whose spouse – himself a former president – is running around the world raising money in these vast sums."

    ... ... ...

    Though Bill Clinton insisted this week that his charity has done nothing "knowingly inappropriate", that is unlikely to satisfy the skeptics from left or right. They say that a family in which one member is vying for the most powerful office on Earth must avoid straying into even the unintentionally inappropriate.

    In the wake of Clinton Cash, the foundation has admitted that it made mistakes in disclosing some of its contributions. It has also implemented new rules that will see its financial reporting increase from once annually to four times a year, while large donations from foreign governments will be limited in future to six countries including the UK and Germany.

    But with Bill refusing doggedly to give up his speaker engagements – "I gotta pay our bills" – and foreign corporations and super-rich individuals still able to donate to the family charity, it looks like this controversy may run and run. Politically, too, Hillary Clinton is confronted with a potential credibility gap between her appeal to ordinary Americans on the presidential campaign trail and the millions that continue to flow to the foundation.

    "Is she going to be in touch with the needs and dreams of poor America when her spouse and daughter are working with the world's global elite?" said Dave Levinthal of the anti-corruption investigative organization, the Center for Public Integrity. "That's a question she will have to answer, every step of the way."

    mkenney63 5 May 2015 20:39
    It would be nice to know how much Saudi and Chinese money her "Foundation" has taken-in. I can tell you how much Bernie has taken - $0. Bernie, the only truly progressive in the race, raised $1.5 million in one day from ordinary working people like you and me who have the smarts to know who's really in their corner. When I look at Hillary I ask myself, do we really want parasitic people like this running our country? Is there anything she has ever touched that isn't tainted by a lust for money?
    foggy2 gixxerman006 5 May 2015 20:38
    I am in the process of reading the actual book. He does have actual sources for many things but what is missing is the information controlled by that now cleaned off server and the details of just who contributed to them, their foundation, and who hired them for those gold plated speeches. Those names never were made public and now the related tax forms are being "redone." Wonder how long that will take.

    The author was able to get pertinent data from the Canadian tax base information and that is important because some of the heavier hitters are Canadians who needed help in the US and other places to make piles of money on their investments. And many statements made by people are documented as are some cables sent TO the state department.

    AlfredHerring raffine 5 May 2015 20:33

    It's funny that free-market Tea Party Republicans criticize the Clintons

    There's a broad populist streak in the Tea Party. They may be social conservatives and opposed to government telling them they MUST buy health insurance from a private company (that's where it started) but on many issues they're part of the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting and Franklin Roosevelt New Deal traditions.

    [May 03, 2015] Hillary Clinton The International Neocon Warmonger, by Webster G. Tarpley

    April 13, 2015 | voltairenet.org

    As the National Journal reported in 2014, even the pathetically weak anti-war left is not ready to reconcile with Hillary given her warmongering as Secretary of State. And with good reason. Scratching just lightly beneath the surface of Hillary Clinton's career reveals the empirical evidence of her historic support for aggressive interventions around the globe.

    Beginning with Africa, Hillary defended the 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap medications for treating malaria and tuberculosis and provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan. In 2006 she supported sending United Nations troops to Darfur with logistical and technical support provided by NATO forces. Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was outspoken in his condemnation of this intervention, claiming it was not committed out of concern for Sudanese people but "…for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent."

    This is the same leader who was murdered in the aftermath of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya; an attack promoted and facilitated with the eager support of Mrs. Clinton. In an infamous CBS news interview, said regarding this international crime: "We came, we saw, he died." As Time magazine pointed out in 2011, the administration understood removing Qaddafi from power would allow the terrorist cells active in Libya to run rampant in the vacuum left behind. Just last month the New York Times reported that Libya has indeed become a terrorist safe haven and failed state- conducive for exporting radicals through "ratlines" to the conflict against Assad in Syria.

    Hillary made prompt use of the ratlines for conflicts in the Middle East. In the summer of 2012, Clinton privately worked with then CIA director and subversive bonapartist David Petraeus on a proposal for providing arms and training to death squads to be used to topple Syria just as in Libya. This proposal was ultimately struck down by Obama, reported the New York Times in 2013, but constituted one of the earliest attempts at open military support for the Syrian death squads.

    Her voting record on intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq is well known and she also has consistently called for attacking Iran. She even told Fareed Zakaria the State Department was involved "behind the scenes" in Iran's failed 2009 Green Revolution. More recently in Foreign Policy magazine David Rothkopf wrote on the subject of the Lausanne nuclear accord, predicting a "snap-back" in policy by the winner of the 2016 election to the foreign policy in place since the 1980s. The title of this article? "Hillary Clinton is the Real Iran Snap-Back." This makes Hillary the prime suspect for a return to the madcap Iranian policies that routinely threaten the world with a World War 3 scenario.

    Hillary Clinton is not only actively aggressing against Africa and the Middle East. She was one of the loudest proponents against her husband's hesitancy over the bombing of Kosovo, telling Lucina Frank: "I urged him to bomb," even if it was a unilateral action.

    While no Clinton spokesperson responded to a request by the Washington Free Beacon regarding her stance on Ukraine, in paid speeches she mentioned "putting more financial support into the Ukrainian government". When Crimea decided to choose the Russian Federation over Poroshenko's proto-fascist rump state, Hillary anachronistically called President Putin's actions like "what Hitler did in the '30s." As a leader of the bumbled "reset" policy towards Russia, Hillary undoubtedly harbors some animus against Putin and will continue the destabilization project ongoing in Ukraine.

    Not content with engaging in debacles in Eastern Europe, she has vocally argued for a more aggressive response to what she called the "rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America." This indicates her willingness to allow the continuation of CIA sponsored efforts at South American destabilization in the countries of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil.

    It is one of the proud prerogatives of the Tax Wall Street Party to push out into the light the Wall Street and foundation-funded Democrats. The final blow to Hillary's clumsy façade comes directly from arch-neocon Robert Kagan. Kagan worked as a foreign policy advisor to Hillary along with his wife, Ukraine madwoman Victoria Nuland, during Hillary's term as Secretary of State. He claimed in the New York Times that his view of American foreign policy is best represented in the "mainstream" by the foreign policy of Hillary Clinton; a foreign policy he obviously manipulated or outright crafted. Kagan stated: "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue…it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." What further reason could any sane person need to refute Hillary? A vote for Hillary is a vote for the irrational return to war.

    The "Giant Sucking Sound": Clinton Gave US NAFTA and Other Free Trade Sellouts

    "There is no success story for workers to be found in North America 20 years after NAFTA," states AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka. Unlike other failures of his Presidency, Bill Clinton can not run from NAFTA. It was Vice President Al Gore, not a veto-proof Republican congress, who lobbied to remove trade barriers with low-wage Mexico.

    The record of free trade is clear. Multinational corporations and Wall Street speculators realize incredible profits, wages remain stagnant in the US, poverty persists in the developing world, and the remaining industrial corporations in America and Canada are increasingly owned by Chinese, Indian and other foreign interests.

    America's free trade policy is upside down. Besides Canada, Australia and Korea, most of our "free" trade partners are low-wage sweatshop paradises like Mexico, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Bahrain and Oman. The US does in fact apply tariffs on most goods and on most nations of origin – rates are set by the US International Trade Commission (USTIC), a quasi-public federal agency.

    Since a German- or Japanese-made automobile would under USITC's schedule be taxed 10% upon importation, Volkswagen and Toyota can circumvent taxation by simply building their auto assembly plants for the US market in Mexico. In Detroit, an auto assembly worker is paid between $14 and $28/hour, ($29,120-$58,240/yr); hard work for modest pay. In Mexico, the rate varies from $2-5/hour.

    In China, all automobile imports regardless of origin are tariffed as high as 25%. This allows the Chinese to attract joint ventures with Volkswagen and Toyota, and to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "keep the jobs, the cars and the money."

    NAFTA-related job loss is not a question of productivity, currency manipulation, "fair trade," environmental standards, etc. While these issues are not trivial, free trade – as Lincoln's advisor Henry C. Carey proved – is a matter of simple accounting. Can an American family survive on $4,160/year ($2/hr)? If not, cars and their components will be built in Mexico. If we want cars built in the United States, the only solution is a general tariff (import tax) reflecting the difference between those wage standards, like the very tariffs repealed by Bill Clinton.

    In the United States the "runaway shop" under NAFTA and CAFTA has sent trade deficits and unemployment soaring while wages drop relative to the cost of living. Yet Mexico and other "partners" receive no benefit either. Many manufacturing sectors in Mexico pay wages lower than the equivalent sector in China. Mexico is now the world leader in illegal narcotics exportation and weapons importation. The poverty level between 1994 and 2009 remained virtually identical. (52.4% – 52.3%). The shipping of raw materials to Mexico comprise the majority of so called American "exports". The finished products from these exports are assembled and sold back to the United States at slave labor prices.

    Don't expect Hillary to behave differently with the coming "Trans-Pacific Partnership," which seeks to replace an ascendant China with less-developed Vietnam and Malaysia. Vietnam would overtake India-allied Bangladesh in the global apparel trade, and Malaysia has a high-tech manufacturing sector poised to rival China's. With America's manufacturing economy in shambles, the Clinton machine can now be redirected to geopolitical maneuvers.

    Article licensed under Creative Commons

    The articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).

    U.S. Hasn't Helped Kiev's "Endless Dysfunction" by Michael S. Rozeff

    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.
    LewRockwell.com

    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.

    [May 02, 2015] radio C-SPAN

    Mar 10, 2015 | annbeaker
    Listened on the way to work the record of the meeting of the Senate Committee on Ukraine and anti-Russia. First, the names of speakers and respondents. Kornblum, Kantor, Nudelman and joined them boy Bobby Corker and others have wives from Ukraine, they said. Second, Putin is such a chronic incarnation of Satan that he looks larger them even the whole country. Now there are even concepts in his name, for example - "Putin's economy", what a beast it is unclear, but in the minds of American senators it's definitely evil. And just a bad person who alone lives in seven rooms and actively that fact that the members of the Congress did not like one bit and expressed strong desire to move him to something with less rooms. the third is that those gentlemen with the German-Yiddish surnames discussed the entire countries and territories as if they were just deserts, forests and steppes. As if there no population on this territories, who may have their own views on the subject, distinct from opinion by Committee members. Fourth, in some moments of the meeting, reminded the congregation in the local synagogue, and sometimes the PTA meeting which analyzed the behavior of poor students.

    Main memes and beliefs expressed at the meeting:

    1. Russia backward and unable to progress and development of the country.
    2. In Russia there is no infrastructure.
    3. Russia lives from the sale of oil and only.
    4. Russia is financing all and with all the oil revenue.
    5. Russia is very aggressive.
    6. She attacked Ukraine. The existence of civil war not only not denied, this concept is just not even considered by Committee members. That completely changes everything, not war within one nation, when brother rose up against brother, and external invasion of a neighbor!
    7. Russia is aggressive towards the Baltic States and the Baltic States should be armed.
    8. Tomorrow Russia will attack Estonia.
    9. America has vital interests in Ukraine.
    10. To return the Crimea to Ukraine is America's vital interests.
    11. Putin is enemy No. 1.

    There were suggestions from the field. For example, start to give Ukraine the money for one billion dollars a year for three consecutive years. This money, Ukraine will buy weapons from the USA and defend against Putin. We must begin to arm Estonia and to send battalions because there is a lot of Russians and Putin's aggression will be the first thing sent to Estonia. This was repeated several times and in different ways. I.e. looks like you have already decided to arrange provocations in Estonia. As this is done, he starts revealing to cut Russian compactly living in Narva or Estonia will satisfy the invasion by type Saakashvilis, only where? In Narva? He then tried to attack South Ossetia which was legally in Georgia, but not inhabited by the same nationality as the rest of the country and there was revolt. In Estonia like no no revolt. But it is clear that the next for some expensive and stupid military supplies is Estonia. Funny, Yes?

    [May 01, 2015] There was heroism and cruelty on both sides: the truth behind one of Ukraine's deadliest days by Howard Amos in Odessa

    Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about which there is quite a lot of information to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
    The Guardian

    The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning and there are people inside," a woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started describing how people were jumping from the upper floors. "Have you lost your minds?" one man asked, his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled. In one of the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.

    Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia activists were barricaded in.

    VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24

    The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.

    The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate the massacre.

    The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to the killers and the dead along the lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'


    normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52

    Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear is how all media is controlled by the Kremlin

    Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48

    So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
    How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.

    vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46

    Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators, there hasn't been and there will be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used. For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious suicide by 48 people who set themselves afire, here is footage again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg

    Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
    23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
    24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
    26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
    27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.

    While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of the victims were middle-aged. At least 10 of them - women.

    31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest of their bodies don't have the same injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with only their heads and hands burned.

    33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of them are middle-aged. They were not fighters, as the article would imply.

    36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom they could find, a young woman in this specific frame.

    46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood is splattered all over the room.

    48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.

    1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.

    Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that somehow people inside were setting themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even see it as murder makes me just angry.


    AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43

    Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.

    Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.


    BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25

    In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f… the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.

    However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with.

    Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material aid from the West. What else is new?


    MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03

    Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day after the coup d'etat; stop this whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this thing seems to escalate, leading us to a nuclear war.

    Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy too. He should've taken Tbilisi, and put Saakashvili on trial.

    To teach the bastards a lesson.

    Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', and the murdering Nazi bastards get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken control of the place months ago, look at Grenada.

    RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52

    Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt. That said they had neither brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external powers for the deep shit it is in now.

    PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31

    Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine is a temporary occupier of the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian. They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine that has stayed on our Russian land for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.

    BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16

    I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and relatives all over, and I know exactly what is going on in Ukraine.

    Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine (a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).

    Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine speak what is considered literary Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik", a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian. Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine committed suicide.

    If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed the example of Switzerland and Singapore, having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only official language and pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges operated only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.

    That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now arms became a civil war. Not to mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser) and WWII (siding with Hitler). They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina, who are considered heroes by current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.

    80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them to power, it creates trouble. Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.

    BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10

    Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.

    Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?

    RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06

    To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.

    To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army - 6000 died.

    Get it now?

    Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04

    For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to convince me either way.. How could the worlds media be so silent?

    Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could not shut up about who they thought was responsible!!

    Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.

    Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48

    Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!

    Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46

    Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning. Any life reporting give the footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually. Even this rather bias article contributes to true story because the lie in it sticks out of logic for anybody we is able to think for themselves.

    PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42

    Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war.

    Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41

    It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's wars in Russia. Since 17 century they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without people rising and forming resistance. Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.

    BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35

    The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he took action. Kiev choose not to punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same interview you constantly reference.

    Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass? If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend them, who was?

    Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34

    Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred are simply local people who disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely these who want own country to be coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.

    Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24

    Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators. Is it the ambition of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators would be?

    Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22

    FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre of civilians here. I don't see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.

    ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18

    Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support. By publishing such whitewashing attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future, behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more civilians whose only desire is to live in freedom and peace.

    Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13

    It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.

    Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09

    What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever else is required to make Molotov cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
    As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the day. These were the people communicating with police from the start.

    MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51

    Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/ , and it has been relatively informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".

    Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...


    Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51

    So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
    If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't learn much on what happened...
    Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police, watch this link:

    http://orientalreview.org/2014/05/06/genocide-in-novorossiya-and-swan-song-of-ukrainian-statehood/

    And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been agents provocateur...

    BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47

    Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never existed? If so, please state it explicitly.

    Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
    Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity? If so, please state it explicitly.

    Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists, are not Nazis? If so, please state it explicitly.

    As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1991. Here is history 101, not necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know the truth.

    Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum. Ukraine illegally repealed Crimean 1992 constitution and cancelled Crimean autonomy against the wishes of Crimean population in 1994.
    BTW, several Western sources recently confirmed the results of Crimean referendum of 2014.
    Forbes magazine
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/

    German polling company GFK
    http://www.gfk.com/ua/Documents/Presentations/GFK_report_FreeCrimea.pdf

    Gallup
    http://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf

    Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.

    As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
    Your next argument?

    Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45

    Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible" account offers no sources, agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is rampant apologism.

    I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.

    BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40

    I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here were a different kettle of fish entirely back then.

    Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39

    The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred on by the cruelty of fate is sickening. We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to the pro-Ukrainians as "football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are famours for 2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.

    Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU

    It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.

    1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade Union building.

    2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors were barred.

    3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten as they lay on the ground.

    4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances and fire engines.

    5. The Police pretty much let all this happen.

    It's all in the videos - just go to youtube. Helping Kiev cover its backside is despicable.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKpJ1-ECpPg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4dJRnI-X8Q
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0mgpwW6_Y

    BunglyPete

    At entrance to underpass guys with baseball bats are asking passersby: "are you for Odessa or Moscow?" The right answer is Odessa. - @howardamos

    From the Guardian report on May 2 2014, by Howard Amos,

    "The aim is to completely clear Odessa [of pro-Russians]," said Dmitry Rogovsky, another activist from Right Sector

    According to the lady that setup the May 2 Group most victims had blunt trauma, and 30 had gunshot wounds.

    Ah the difference a year makes.

    coffeegirl -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:33

    And more http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/ukraine-fatal-clashes-pro-russia-separatists-east#comment-35243539

    coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:30

    Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved through hours and hours of video - he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to whitewash the atrocity. Check his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said both sides threw the molotov's.

    I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a molotov cocktail as the BBC first reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are the odds of that) told them a person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is absolutely ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.

    I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs consecutively. You'll notice at exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you see an additional molotov cocktail just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore this is most likely the cause of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the violent youth below burned those people alive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9AMjLBIliw#t=125

    Here's a link to the BBC article that quotes a random guy named Sergei and provides no evidence whatsoever to back up their story .http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27275383


    MaoChengJi -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:24

    And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media, and most of the world media (and even some of the western media).

    I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.

    Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16

    Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists" in Kiev, a narrative that has gained widespread traction.

    Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.

    John Smith -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:15

    No, there are no nazis in Ukraine. All Kremlin lies.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDqk-uvYn4E

    Goodthanx -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:11

    Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are actually the same red armbands Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing the same armband in both Odesaa and Maidan!

    vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07

    Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians entered the supposedly "heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will see them existing the building after it started burning from inside.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg

    Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
    24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
    26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
    27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.

    Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people in the building where set afire while still alive.

    You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.

    castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02

    No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.


    PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58

    Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest there.


    WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56

    Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble. They are wearing the same red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under the guise of football supporters.


    MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55

    Hi turk10,
    I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and ye shall find. Use google.

    vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50

    Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install fear in the city. Since then the city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware of the potential response from Kiev's supporters.

    Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some street fights elsewhere in the city, events that were taking place all over the country those days.

    Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40

    No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred, or come to lay flowers at the scene of their death.

    No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:

    "Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."

    ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18

    Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre, for their own deaths, on those who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance. I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty little pro-Ukrainian girls sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments of death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring bottles and rags and fuel to an event if it was innocent in nature?

    And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to throw from inside the building, when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames, saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence, but neither does it pass the smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.

    StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56

    The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born. Extreme natinalists will want to murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they feel a patriot should.

    That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.

    MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:55

    Here's another opinion:
    http://darussophile.com/2014/05/massacre-in-odessa/

    It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:

    I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles had been reversed and if it had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov cocktails into the building whilst baying for blood outside.

    Indeed.

    GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45

    Many of them not locals.

    I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of course s an Irish man who doesn't regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning any debate.

    There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the northern Unionist Community here), who identify with Britain often to the point that they express regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them, but I would not set them on fire in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an Irish Donbass. No justification for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.


    MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43

    Hi turk10,
    what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists", and isn't it the same thing as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?

    Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?

    BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38

    So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What do you call the insignia of, for example, Azov battalion (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion ). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what is.
    I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled the war in Donbass, including Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.

    The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".

    To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?

    EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28

    A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes in the streets of Odessa, 2 May 2014.

    How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does he have a sign on his forehead burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume that because the caption says so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and it's been done many a time.

    The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the effect of the homemade grenades. . . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.

    Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going to destroy that camp and not on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states (complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they were attacked, what did women in the camp have to do with it?
    Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up the truth all the time?

    BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24

    There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
    - If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
    - We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
    - But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
    - That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.

    castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21

    The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official Ukrainian investigation and the Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and other evidence showing that the fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately omitted.

    Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists " were being burned, hacked, mauled, shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?

    BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20

    There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true.

    In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the mass murder of anti-fascists by pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were equally guilty.
    This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument. The readers who want to know the truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read for themselves.

    The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as Odessa massacre was followed by the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the murder of thousands of civilians in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army and Nazi battalions.

    I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet media. Congratulations on a new low!


    coffeegirl aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11

    Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.

    The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer US ex-marine griffin alabama:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/ukraine-fatal-clashes-pro-russia-separatists-east#comment-35243539

    EugeneGur Chirographer 1 May 2015 11:10

    You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority for you, why don't you cite everything he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the right wing groups and funded by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here
    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html

    greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08

    you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the separatists and a good many other countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers were offered to Ukraine right up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.

    Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for peace keepers only came after getting an a*& kicking.

    kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would be a way out for them. Usa by their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.

    Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups to bolster their ranks.

    An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china and new zealand and poroshenko stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help, as it turned out they did.

    EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54

    Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves. We've heard that before. But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,

    None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial

    Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?

    Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately matched camps

    No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with newcomers from the western Ukraine, and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7firu0g4tU

    Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".

    So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of kill them, you can sort of achieve a "match".

    Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50

    This was a massacre. Period.

    Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48

    Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent figures shot this year alone. No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous sums to keep it from bankruptcy.


    nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42

    This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:

    Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara Chernoivanenko, a spokesman for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May 2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic forces preparing to hold a day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
    Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful day. Patriotic forces create patrols that will keep order in the area of ​​Cathedral Square, which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died on 2 May. They will make every effort to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara Chernoivanenko, on their part will not be any aggression.

    Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the building of Trade Unions in Odessa, will now protect those who survived and who should hold the memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa massacre. The only question is, from whom they should protect them?
    I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all over the city. Well, you can bet that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions, and beaten with clubs or even shot at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has even been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
    So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now provide protection to those who mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
    And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video, which was filmed during the visit of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film, the guys from "Patriotic patrol" argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
    "Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"


    MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45

    Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist militant died, under circumstanced unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).

    Nice.

    a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation

    Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?

    I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian" and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.

    The so-called "pro-Russian" side is, in fact, pro-Ukraine and anti-fascist. Here's a photo (from wikipedia) of some of the people (or their comrades) who were massacred in Odessa a year ago:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/RussianSpringOdessa20140420_08.JPG


    6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43

    Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.

    The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav Bartuska, for example:

    "Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."

    The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.


    6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43

    Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.

    The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav Bartuska, for example:

    "Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."

    The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.


    Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20

    They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe More - Vor na Vore.
    Black Sea - a thief by thief.

    normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14

    This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube Every one has cell phones which can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament held a hearing in Brussels to hear the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut down the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is simply shocking. this is an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence


    ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53

    The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller about the cowardice of intellectuals following the Nazis':

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
    Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.

    It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa massacre is a warning. It's time they stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a fascist regime in Kiev.


    BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48

    Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments.. Do you not realise we have Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.

    You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.

    I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise that you will need to go to more lengths to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war', articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit yourself, and encourage people to move to alternative media sources.

    If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit your own narrative.

    You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.


    SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30

    Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to cover up high-level complicity.

    At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian football clubs. But they were soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and relatively well equipped.
    Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals to block the exits and firebomb the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement below where they died on impact. The few who survived the fall were savagely beaten with clubs and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.

    Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough incident to change the narrative of what is going on in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.

    This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush administration used a similar tactic in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict from an armed struggle against foreign occupation into a civil war.

    So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian Security Services were supervised by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then supervised and managed by MPRI, an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure. (report, AFP).

    Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct responsibility, and is complicit in these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and radicals to burn unarmed people alive.

    warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30

    Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.

    alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30

    Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try not to feel "holier than thou" when you read this stuff.

    ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23

    Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics.

    Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre - this was no "swirling rumour". Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes unscorched, not caused by the actual fire.

    Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more an orchestrated attack on the Trade Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the roof before the fire started in the building.

    Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building not just on the roof, don't figure in this report.

    ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41

    'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat those who fled the burning building. "There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on your knees, on your knees'."

    This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.

    The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with their Government, but are civilised and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by both sides in the war.

    Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists that readily resort to violence and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).

    Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev Parliament and even the Government; a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic and lacks any humanitarian concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic and humanitarian blockade ).

    This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter future for all the people of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great powers, East and West.

    Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22

    Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic article.

    Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20

    Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
    Whatever western Ukrainians told us.

    [May 01, 2015] From Protocol of interrogation of the Ukrainian oligarch Firtash today in Vienna, Austria

    In general, if anybody tells you that you have gone crazy and suffer from paranoia and that the USA wants us only good as well as naive blabbering about the "independent choice of the Ukrainian people", please show them this piece."
    kolobok1973.livejournal.com

    Writes SIP:

    "From the Protocol of interrogation of the Ukrainian oligarch Firtash today in Vienna, Austria:

    The judge: I Repeat the question: how are you supported Yanukovych?

    Firtash: I traveled around the country, I personally campaigned people, communicated with the trade unions on the subject of support for Yanukovych.

    C: did You Finance it?

    F: No. Then, when Yanukovych won in 2010, we began to light the differences. And in 2012 I became clear that Yanukovych will not have to carry out reforms. And then I realized that the country needs a strong candidate who will run for elections and win them. And in the meanwhile I found a Klitschko. He is very famous person in the country and the world, young, athlete. He has achieved a lot in sports and I was sure that he would be able to achieve this and in politics. And when Klitschko made a political force of the BLOW, I supported him financially. Then, in 2013, the conflict between Russia and the USA was already obvious. I realized the struggle begins, begins the tug of war. America understands that I have my own position regarding the fate of Ukraine and it does not coincide with their position. In August 2013, the serious conflict begins – trading, I am persuaded that it is necessary to settle differences peacefully, because Russia for us is a huge market.

    And then the American government created a case against me and tried to blackmail this way Yanukovych (you will be next). Then took place the meeting of Yanukovych with Putin. At the same time Americans start pressing charges against me . Then comes European Commission to persuade Yanukovych to sign the Association agreement. Then Nuland arrives and says:

    1. Sign Association with EU.

    2. Release Tymoshenko for treatment abroad.

    3. Give Kharkiv field to Chevron.

    And Yanukovich promises Nuland everything she wanted. And you remember, after they finished a meeting, in an hour they dropped drop the charges against me.

    Victoria Nuland (eng. Victoria Nuland born. 1961, new York) is an American diplomat and politician, a spokesman for the U.S. State Department from 2011 to 2013, Then - assistant Secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia.

    In general, if anybody tells you that you have gone crazy and suffer from paranoia and that the USA wants us only good as well as naive blabbering about the "independent choice of the Ukrainian people", please show them this piece."

    [Apr 22, 2015] M of A - Ukraine Both Sides Touched By NATO Related Murder Of The Other Side

    Apr 22, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

    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 NiqNaq provides (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..."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-idUSKBN0N70W820150416

    Lone Wolf | Apr 18, 2015 2:05:47 AM | 7

    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.

    CTuttle | Apr 18, 2015 2:23:51 AM | 8

    Aloha, b...! Salon has a great interview with Stephen Cohen... The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say": Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won't tell you

    And here's a great article from Jeff Kaye... CIA Intervention in Ukraine Has Been Taking Place for Decades

    james @1
    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.

    Posted by: blowback | Apr 18, 2015 8:41:03 AM | 10

    An organisation called the 'Ukrainian Insurgent Army' has claimed responsibility for the murders of Chechetov, Peklushenko, Miller, Kalashnikov and Buzina.

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/http/antifashist.com/item/ukrainskaya-povstancheskaya-armiya-vzyala-na-sebya-otvetstvennost-za-rasstrel-buziny-i-kalashnikova.html

    Posted by: Yonatan | Apr 18, 2015 9:29:19 AM | 11

    CTuttle at 8 --

    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

    Terror in Odessa: mass arrests of protesters: 53 people reported detained at demonstration in support of local autonomy;

    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:

    Ukrainian Neo-Nazi march in Odessa

    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.

    Fort Russ has this report that the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) claimed responsibility for recent murders of regime opponents. Translator K. Rus says it could either be "the far right taking matters into their hands" or an attempt by the regime to distance itself, after posting the "wanted" notice.

    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.

    It will be then no suprise that figures close to Poroshenko are arguing for mass internment and deportations for dissenters. The administration itself is advising on how to distort the Second World War for fun and profit. "Current defenders of Ukraine should be considered as successors of the winners over Nazism."

    All one can say is, how bizarre!

    Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 12:20:55 PM | 14

    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....

    Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 12:44:54 PM | 15

    Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

    The Thomas a Becket school of oppo neutralization...

    Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 18, 2015 12:45:23 PM | 16

    Another intresting find..


    1. WHOIS dingbatter.com

    and you will get:

    Admin Name: Ophelia Dingbatter
    Admin Organization:
    Admin Street: Box B 646
    Admin City: Black Diamond
    Admin State/Province: Alberta
    Admin Postal Code: T0L 0H0
    Admin Country: Canada
    Admin Phone: +1.4039337890
    Admin Phone Ext:
    Admin Fax:
    Admin Fax Ext:
    Admin Email: [email protected]
    Registry Tech ID:

    2. Tech Name: Helmut Morscher

    Tech Organization: Webby Inc
    Tech Street: Box 646
    Tech City: Black Diamond
    Tech State/Province: Alberta
    Tech Postal Code: T0L 0H0
    Tech Country: Canada
    Tech Phone: +1.4039337890
    Tech Phone Ext:
    Tech Fax:
    Tech Fax Ext:
    Tech Email: [email protected]
    Name Server: NS.WEBBY.COM


    3.
    Google Helmut Morscher
    https://ca.linkedin.com/in/helmutmorscher

    "International Media Liaison
    Maidan Alliance"

    and
    "International issues advisor
    Maidan web-site"

    Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 18, 2015 12:48:32 PM | 17

    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.

    Posted by: A.E.W | Apr 18, 2015 1:01:36 PM | 18

    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.

    Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 1:07:53 PM | 19

    @18 Poroshenko will call it Russian propaganda. MSM will just ignore it.

    Posted by: dh | Apr 18, 2015 1:32:55 PM | 20

    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.

    Posted by: juliania | Apr 18, 2015 3:45:28 PM | 21

    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).

    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 18, 2015 4:45:25 PM | 22

    From article I wrote in 2010:

    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."

    http://pubrecord.org/law/8527/assassination-court-argues-legal/

    Posted by: Jeffrey Kaye | Apr 18, 2015 5:23:49 PM | 23

    Or how about this:

    "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).

    http://www.infowars.com/cia-assassination-program-revealed-nothing-new-under-the-sun/

    Posted by: Jeffrey Kaye | Apr 18, 2015 5:31:45 PM | 24

    @PB #21:

    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.)

    Posted by: Demian | Apr 18, 2015 7:29:07 PM | 25

    @24 You are probably thinking of this...

    http://thesaker.is/rostislav-ishchenko-about-the-assassination-of-oles-buzina/

    Poles know what's going on too.

    http://newcoldwar.org/top-polish-military-advisor-completely-withdraws-his-support-of-ukraine-govt/

    Posted by: dh | Apr 18, 2015 7:51:36 PM | 26

    @dh #25:

    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.)

    Posted by: Demian | Apr 18, 2015 9:28:56 PM | 27

    "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.

    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 18, 2015 9:37:20 PM | 28

    @27 Well I should have said 'some' Poles know what's going on. No doubt there is a range of opinion in Poland.

    The BBC mentioned the killings albeit with an anti-Russian spin..

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32361718

    Not to worry. Poroshenko has promised a full and thorough investigation.

    Posted by: dh | Apr 18, 2015 9:47:11 PM | 29

    @rufus magister@14

    All one can say is, how bizarre!

    Yup, it's a bizarro world out there. It's a total land of confusion

    Posted by: Lone Wolf | Apr 18, 2015 10:40:38 PM | 30

    dh @25

    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.

    LET'S DO IT.

    Posted by: fairleft | Apr 19, 2015 12:41:23 AM | 31

    Warmongering by one fucking American NATO commander Lt. Gen. Frederick Ben Hodges , an interview across the western compliant media:

    Europe faces a 'real threat' from Russia, warns US army commander

    Posted by: Oui | Apr 19, 2015 5:57:29 AM | 32

    More, Europe has two enemies Russia and ISIS …

    European Union Army Plan Aims to Protect Continent from Russia, ISIS

    Posted by: Oui | Apr 19, 2015 5:57:59 AM | 33

    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.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/04/16/the-murderers-of-kiev/

    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.

    one garbled article, the telegraph

    http://tinyurl.com/ly8csrl

    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.'

    Posted by: Noirette | Apr 19, 2015 1:05:25 PM | 35

    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...."

    Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 19, 2015 6:07:59 PM | 36

    @rm 35:

    Thanks for the link. I couldn't figure out what the song was from the title. Sorry, but Phil Collins' voice always reminds me of Miami Vice.

    Speaking of people in music videos with fat faces, consider this (which I have probably posted here before):

    Rammstein: America

    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:

    Flying Lizards: Sex Machine

    Posted by: Demian | Apr 19, 2015 7:35:55 PM | 37

    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.

    Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 19, 2015 10:32:16 PM | 39

    The Phoenix Program comes to Ukraine.

    Posted by: guest77 | Apr 20, 2015 8:08:59 PM | 45

    Posted by: Demian | Apr 20, 2015 10:12:19 PM | 48

    And now, for just a minute, anyway, back onto the Ukraine.

    Fort Russ has Vladimir Lepekhin explaining Why the Ukrainian army is doomed to defeat.

    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.

    Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 20, 2015 10:52:01 PM | 50

    @Demian,

    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).

    Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 21, 2015 10:51:54 AM | 53

    @⇂ɔ #53:

    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

    - Adalbrand (@Adalbrand) April 21, 2015

    Now, on a lighter note: Kiev junta magic underwear???

    Patriotic Underwear to Increase Morale

    Posted by: Vintage Red | Apr 21, 2015 5:50:44 PM | 56

    All I can say about this, yes, it seems serious. Patriotic underwear to increase morale of the Ukrainian army. So you can't say you weren't briefed on the new dress code.

    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."

    You might need a laugh after that. With All of Ukraine Blocked by the Gridlock From Successive Russian Invasions, arrangements are being made for overflow parking in Poland and Belarus.

    [Apr 10, 2015] Mission Accomplished? ISIS Leaders Are All Ex-Saddam Hussein Army Officers

    Apr 06, 2015 | zerohedge.com
    Thirst Mutilator

    Not really... If you're a typical Chinese or Indian... You hardly ever hear about these fucking clowns...

    The only get 'REPORTAGE' time in Western culture [who are born, bred, & trained sychophants]...

    [Apr 09, 2015] Ukraine The Global Corporate Annexation

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits' ..."
    Apr 21, 2014 | Jesse's Café Américain
    "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."

    Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

    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...

    Read the entire report here.

    [Apr 04, 2015] The majority of Maidan supporters are experiencing severe impoverishment instead of welfare bonanza from EU they expected

    Notable quotes:
    "... 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. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    kirill, April 3, 2015 at 6:11 am

    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.

    et Al, April 3, 2015 at 2:49 pm
    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!

    marknesop, April 3, 2015 at 3:16 pm
    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.

    [Apr 03, 2015] Were not cattle Kiev protesters throw manure at US embassy

    Apr 03, 2015 | offguardian

    Life News reports:

    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.

    [Apr 03, 2015] U.S. Trained Fascists To Storm Kiev

    Notable quotes:
    "... Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord support. ..."
    Apr 01, 2015 | M of A

    barrisj | Apr 1, 2015 1:08:35 PM | 8

    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!

    rufus magister | Apr 1, 2015 10:23:52 PM | 9

    Alberto at 6

    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.

    Meanwhile, searches at the Ministry of the Interior have begun.

    At Russia Insider, Rostislav Ishchenko argues that War in the East Is the Only Thing Preventing Ukraine Collapse. Which will not be pretty when it happens.

    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.

    Some good news -- miners near Kharkov are fighting to be paid.

    Fete | Apr 1, 2015 11:39:02 PM | 10

    04/01/2015 23:59

    Russian Spring

    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.

    rufus magister | Apr 2, 2015 11:05:14 PM | 26
    It's Official – All Kiev's Investigations of Maidan Crimes Deadlocked

    "Council of Europe report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests are a total shambles and are going nowhere."

    Harold | Apr 3, 2015 2:56:26 AM | 28

    As billmon predicted the Ukraine has called Russia's number -- for now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-ukraine-crisis-gas-idUSKBN0MT0B420150402
    Richard Steven Hack | Apr 3, 2015 1:44:14 PM | 31

    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.

    Demian | Apr 3, 2015 2:14:25 PM | 32

    Funny that this isn't showing up on Western news channels:

    offguardian: "We're not cattle": Kiev protesters throw manure at US embassy (with video)

    Note that unlike the EuroMaidan, this protest is peaceful.

    Demian | Apr 3, 2015 5:58:20 PM | 33

    Republicans see Obama as a greater threat to the US than Putin. For once, they are right.
    jfl | Apr 3, 2015 6:11:32 PM | 34

    @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?

    [Mar 28, 2015] Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical

    Quote: "she apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the Russian economy was in tatters."

    Mar 28, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile, March 28, 2015 at 4:07 am

    This is what Psaki says, as I posted 3 days ago after seeing an article about the Dozhd TV interview in Komsomolskaya Pravda:

    I thought Sobchak had fucked off, anyway, because her life is in danger – allegedly: I wish she would.

    Джен Псаки: Смещение Путина не является нашей целью, мы хотим изменить курс России

    Jen Psaki: The ousting of Putin is not our goal: we want to change the direction that Russia is taking

    Extracts and précis:
    -----------------------------------The official U.S. state Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki is soon to go on maternity leave and will quit her post, which has become famous even in distant Russia. But before doing that, on Wednesday night Jen gave an interview with Ksenia Sobchak in a live "Dozhd" transmission.

    Psaki: We cooperate with Russia on many issues, but we have serious disagreements about the Ukraine. About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets international standards.

    Psaki then said what would happen following the U.S. Congress request that Obama begin arms shipments to the Ukraine:

    Psaki: Congress gives authority for the president to act, but it is up to him to decide whether to take any action. Of course, our goal is to make Russia and Pro-Russian separatists in the Ukraine strictly comply with the Minsk agreement. We are not going to wage a proxy war with Russia, but we are considering different options depending on what is happening. We are only talking about defensive weaponry, but weighing all the facts, we are trying to understand what decision will bring a resolution to the conflict in the Ukraine. There are many other levers: the introduction of new sanctions, negotiations with our external partners. The USA has a lot of options…

    Russia and Pro-Russian separatists have encroached into Ukraine territory. There are Russian troops there, so there are good reasons for what Congress has recommended.

    Asked by Sobchak if she thought Putin was a dictator, Psaki answered:

    It is a pity that he seems to have ignored the economic decline of the country, which is having a direct impact on the Russian people, and is focusing on unlawful interference in Ukrainian affairs. Political leaders in America would be prosecuted if they chose such a path.

    Sobchak: Is the purpose of the US to oust Putin?

    Psaki: No, that is not our goal. Our goal is to stop the illegal invasion by Russia and pro-Russian separatists of Ukrainian territory. This is not about changing the leadership of the country. This should be the choice of the Russian people. But Russia is taking action specifically in Ukrainian matters, and Russia has the opportunity to change its course of action.

    Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical as, for example, in the case of the expulsion of Yanukovych.

    Psaki: We tried to work with Yanukovych, but he left the country. There was chaos, and we are reminded of this today- and with deep regret.

    Sometimes Psaki clearly deviated from the general line of the US leadership. For example, she apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the Russian economy was in tatters. She said:

    "We do not consider Russia as an opponent. We wish you success and prosperity."

    Psaki did a lot of talking about cooperating with Russia – over both achievable and desirable goals. However, the sincerity of her statements did not lend itself to be very much believed.
    -----------------------------------

    End of excerpts and précis.

    kat kan, March 28, 2015 at 4:40 am

    About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets international standards.

    Hmmm…. good question., What ARE international standards about people living where they live? When does living in your own house turn into an invasion?

    colliemum, March 28, 2015 at 5:29 am

    When someone else wants to have your house?

    [Mar 27, 2015] Obama's Drone Policy Crashes and Burns BY Leonard C. Goodman

    But until we end the partnership between government and corporate power, three things will remain constant: Our foreign policy will be expensive for U.S. taxpayers, profitable for the war contractors and disastrous for everyday people.
    In These Times
    The unraveling of Yemen should be a wake-up call for Obama loyalists. Obama was elected in large part because of his opposition to the disastrous Iraq War and his promise of a smarter Middle East policy, one less reliant on invasion and occupation. Nevertheless, in office, Obama has supported the occupation of Afghanistan and the NATO-led overthrow of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, which led to chaos.

    Still, as Obama explained in a September 2014 foreign policy speech, the centerpiece of his strategy in the Middle East has been a more long-distance approach: "taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines." In other words: air strikes, drones and military aid. He touted the success of this strategy in Yemen and Somalia.

    Indeed, Yemen has been the poster child for Obama's Middle East strategy. Using the U.S. military bases that surround Yemen, we have propped up the corrupt and repressive regimes of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his successor, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi (i.e., our "partners on the front lines"). In exchange, they let us incinerate alleged militants. And when we slaughter innocents (like 35 women and children in a 2009 bombing, or 12 members of a wedding party in a 2014 drone strike), our partners help cover up our crimes, even jailing the Yemeni journalist who exposed the U.S. role in the 2009 attack.

    Of course, the cover-up was effective only in the United States, where most of our news comes from corporate sources that almost never challenge official pronouncements about military or CIA missions. The Yemeni people know all too well our criminal acts. Last September, 13-yearold Mohammed Tuaiman al-Jahmi told the Guardian that "he lived in constant fear of the 'death machines' in the sky that had already killed his father and brother" in 2011, as they were out herding the family's camels. In February, Mohammed himself was killed by a U.S. drone.

    The Obama "success story" in Yemen had already come to an end in January, when Houthi rebels took control of the presidential compound in Sanaa, ousting Hadi, his prime minister and his entire cabinet. The motto of the new leaders is "Death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam." On February 10, the State Department confirmed that it had closed the U.S. embassy in Yemen, the third in an Arab country since 2012.

    In truth, Obama's foreign policy is similar to George W. Bush's. The war contractors want to keep the rivers of taxpayer cash flowing into their coffers, while multinational energy firms want the U.S. to keep supporting brutal, undemocratic regimes that keep their boots on the necks of restive citizens who might object to foreign firms exploiting national resources. And as long as our laws permit corrupt ties between corporate interests and politicians, we will continue to see disastrous failure after failure of our foreign policy.

    In February, Obama led a three-day summit on countering violent extremism. The president's remarks at this summit, of course, made no mention of our odious drone policy. No citizens of Yemen or Pakistan were invited to speak about how living with the constant anxiety caused by armed drones buzzing in the sky drives residents to join anti-U.S. terror groups. Nor was there any talk of the blowback caused by the U.S. military bases which garrison the greater Middle East, or of the corrupt, repressive regimes that those U.S. bases support. Instead, leaders of some of those regimes attended the summit.

    Obama did offer empty rhetoric about how we are not at war with Islam. Such words are unlikely to impress Muslims outside the United States, who know that it's Muslims who populate Obama's kill list, who are indefinitely detained at Guantánamo without charges and whose systematic torture by the CIA was swept under the rug by Obama.

    Americans, who are ill-informed about our actions overseas, will hear Obama's empathetic rhetoric and quite rationally conclude that the reason we are losing in places like Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is because Obama is too soft. Perhaps our next president will be someone who promises to get tougher on Muslim extremists.

    But until we end the partnership between government and corporate power, three things will remain constant: Our foreign policy will be expensive for U.S. taxpayers, profitable for the war contractors and disastrous for everyday people.

    [Mar 26, 2015] Ukraine pleads for quick restructuring of debts by Larry Elliott

    "I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere) will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled." ... "How embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots who have prostituted their credibility on the altar of propaganda." This neocons who run the show has thrown Ukrainian people into abysmal poverty and horrors of civil war and now want to sell all the assets for pennies on the dollar. Note activity of Psakibots (psigone, jessam, nickpossum, Mike_UK, etc) in comments. Quote: "I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation. Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad at all. I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer to say nothing than the wrong thing."

    Mar 24, 2015 | The Guardian

    Finance minister Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so Ukraine can move towards stability

    Jeremn -> MartinArvay 26 Mar 2015 09:04

    It is Shock Therapy II. Deregulation. Privatisation ("privatization of everything that can be privatized and we plan to start it this year," she said on 13 March). Selling off assets. Firing staff.

    See the number of staff being sacked from state institutions. 50% from the economic ministry alone. The minister helpfully remarked

    "One can't do anything with old staff."

    OldStickie -> Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 06:53

    East European oligarchs usually buy themselves Israeli citizenship. There is no extradition from Israel so that is where you go when justice begins to catch up with you.

    sodtheproles Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 05:47

    Common sense dictates federalisation for the whole of Ukraine. The existing situation benefits only the US, and their arms manufacturers, no one else

    61gvern 25 Mar 2015 21:12

    I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation.

    Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad at all. I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer to say nothing than the wrong thing.

    nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 17:37

    As far as I understand, with Ukraine is happening now something similar with the patient over which performs open-heart surgery. So, while the surgeons do not complete the operation, they must attach a patient to the artificial heart and artificial lungs, otherwise he would have died.

    Similarly, the Ukraine until recently was inextricably linked with Russia's economic and industrial complex. Severing those ties were equally to the separation of man from his heart during surgery. And, IMF now plays the role of an artificial heart, which should maintain the patient's bloodstream until they implanted a new heart to him. How long the operation will last, and whether it will ever be successful, it is obvious that neither the IMF knows himself. Because, as Natali Jaresko said, Ukraine is a very big country, and throughout the EU is currently a major crisis.

    Also, it is not known how the patient (Ukraine) will pay "the cost of the operation" to the IMF, if one day he really healed, and will he ever be able to do so.

    sodtheproles -> Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 17:12

    I meant for ability to use government to line her own pockets, certainly not for her investment 'skills'

    Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 17:02

    Prof. Steven Cohen, of Princeton and NYU, calls the Ukraine situation "the worst international crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWzHhW_qNiM

    He's probably just a Putin-bot.


    Gonzogal -> sodtheproles 25 Mar 2015 16:22

    That $150 million WNISEF fund handed by Jaresko has lost more than a third of its value since the Ukrainian economy tanked. As she steps into office, Kiev's foreign reserves are down to $10 billion and shrinking, while inflation roars at 22 percent.

    albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 16:06

    http://tass.ru/en/world/784470

    my sources mostly Russian and Ukrainian news agencies or blogs. There has been occupations and clashes between the regime forces and battalions in Kiev, Dniepr and also in Odessa.

    However my best independent source is Colonel Cassad.

    Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 15:43

    Some background on Natalie Jaresko:

    Ukraine's new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. State Department officer who was granted Ukrainian citizenship only this week, headed a U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine that involved substantial insider dealings, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company that she also controlled.

    Jaresko served as president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) with $150 million to spur business activity in Ukraine. She also was cofounder and managing partner of Horizon Capital which managed WNISEF's investments at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent of committed capital, fees exceeding $1 million in recent years, according to WNISEF's 2012 annual report.

    The growth of that insider dealing at the U.S.-taxpayer-funded WNISEF is further underscored by the number of paragraphs committed to listing the "related party transactions," i.e., potential conflicts of interest, between an early annual report from 2003 and the one a decade later.

    In the 2003 report, the "related party transactions" were summed up in two paragraphs, with the major item a $189,700 payment to a struggling computer management company where WNISEF had an investment.

    In the 2012 report, the section on "related party transactions" covered some two pages and included not only the management fees to Jaresko's Horizon Capital ($1,037,603 in 2011 and $1,023,689 in 2012) but also WNISEF's co-investments in projects with the Emerging Europe Growth Fund [EEGF], where Jaresko was founding partner and chief executive officer. Jaresko's Horizon Capital also managed EEGF.

    From 2007 to 2011, WNISEF co-invested $4.25 million with EEGF in Kerameya LLC, a Ukrainian brick manufacturer, and WNISEF sold EEGF 15.63 percent of Moldova's Fincombank for $5 million, the report said. It also listed extensive exchanges of personnel and equipment between WNISEF and Horizon Capital.

    Though it's difficult for an outsider to ascertain the relative merits of these insider deals, they could reflect negatively on Jaresko's role as Ukraine's new finance minister given the country's reputation for corruption and cronyism, a principal argument for the U.S.-backed "regime change" that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.

    Read more: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/

    DerFremde -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 15:02

    That's nothing their president Poroshenko has been on the American payroll since at least 2006.

    Wikileaks Cable 06KIEV1706_a

    frankverismo -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 14:30

    "Russian President Putin's game plan now in Ukraine is to turn it into a failed state as an example to the others in his EurAsian (customs) Union."

    As if Putin and Lavrov need to do anything - it's already a failed state. All thanks to Washington, its NATO stooges and a woefully naive Ukrainian population.

    Jeff1000 -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 13:07

    Ukraine is a disaster - anybody can see that. Your decidedly odd efforts to convince...somebody...that Ukraine is about to turn around and become a healthy economy is, frankly, mad.

    If there isn't another coup, or at least huge unrest in Kiev, by the end of the year it will be a near miracle.

    HollyOldDog -> SHappens 25 Mar 2015 10:38

    The foundations of the bridge between Russia and Crimea are due to go in this spring though the bridge completion could take 2years. Has anyone heard of how the pipelines from Russia to Crimea are progressing - one for gas and the other for water. I think it's best for Crimea to be totally physically seperated from Ukraine for the safety of the Crimean citizens.

    Griffon79 -> nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 10:09

    pretty sure the shadow government in the US has decided to destroy the US - the social compact has been broken - no longer do they act in national interests, but private, commercial ones.

    I give them about a half century before collapse followed by civil war.

    Griffon79 -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 10:05

    Incorrect, but either your juvenile patriotism, or ignorance, or possibly payola prevents you from seeing the absurdness of your position.

    Luckily, the rest of the world as they say is not so dim.

    Griffon79 -> Jonathan Stromberg 25 Mar 2015 10:01

    No, there isnt. This little coup has made that clear to the intellectuals in the West - you know, the ones not in government in journalism, the ones who make the society tick, that our media is at least as, if not more corrupt than any media, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, with the possible exception of North Korea.

    So, I guess the elite thought we would either swallow this, after Syria, Iraq, Libya and countless other misadventures, or that they could retain some credibility after this propaganda assault.

    Wrong on both counts.

    Griffon79 -> Jonathan Stromberg 25 Mar 2015 09:58

    Alleged? ALLEGED? Please.

    Here, from the fine Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/ukraine-women-fighting-frontline

    Check out the insignia on the vehicle behind 'anaconda'. Really great people our 'leaders' have elected to ally with eh?

    Just to defend against your next deflection, it is in fact the neonazo simple 1488, as the Guardian, under pressure BTL, was forced to admit.

    I bet some poor staffer got in trouble for that.

    Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:55

    Ukraine was not attacking anyone until they had a coup, didnt like resistance in the East, and so sent a bunch of neonazi hooligans and their poorly equipped army to attack civilian populations.

    Facts. Unsubjective ones. You feel me, Guardian?

    Griffon79 -> psygone Mar 2015 09:52

    Yes, and America will be nowhere to be seen. America likes to talk big but when it comes down to the wire, they will sacrifice their 'allies' in a heartbeat.

    Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:42

    They weren't Ukrainian nuclear weapons ; they were Russian. The Russians were taking back what they owned. Also, given recent history, its probably a good thing the nutcases in the Ukrainian coup government do not have nukes, n'est pas?

    What do you think happens to the US economy when oil is no longer being traded almost exclusively in US dollars?

    Just curious what the Langley view is.

    Griffon79 -> rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 09:38

    This point, from the HEAVENS:

    "This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated."

    Griffon79 -> Systematic 25 Mar 2015 09:35

    They don't conform to their dishonest narrative, so they wont report on it.
    Right now meetings are being held to determine the best possible way to spin the news for the few dullards who remain supportive in Western nations of the Ukrainian coup government.

    Griffon79 -> TOR2000 25 Mar 2015 09:34

    ah yes but don't expect the vaunted Guardian to report that; they think we are rubes who will swallow their outrageous lies hook line and sinker

    newsflash, kids in short pants, you are the ones killing your creditibility, not us

    johnbonn -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 09:31

    You are on fire today, 'how are you'. Keep it going.

    Griffon79 -> GreatMountainEagle 25 Mar 2015 09:31

    Erm. Ukraine can. Ukraine is like a child that does not understand why her parents wont give her more money after she spends her allowance on candy.

    Only instead of candy, she is spending her money on weapons with which to attack her own (former) citizens.

    Griffon79 -> Demi Boone 25 Mar 2015 09:26

    Its getting bad then since this has been true from the start.

    How embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots who have prostituted their credibility on the altar of propaganda.

    johnbonn -> retsdon 25 Mar 2015 09:25

    How else was the US going to conduct a regime change. And speaking of thugs and carpet baggers Joe Biden fits in nicely.

    And why would you put the words western and credibility together - - a contradiction in terms.

    Griffon79 -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 09:19

    "Ukraine will not be allowed to founder by the West whatever "

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Are you really that naive? Explains a lot, if you are Ukrainian. Idealists, not realists.

    Griffon79 -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 09:16

    Well, as a Canadian, I certainly don't support your blatant lies and distortions.

    The misinformation campaign headquartered in Langley has failed, miserably. People are only too aware of how our corrupt governments have connived in order to support a coup. People are only too aware that the coup government is a mashup of neonazi nationalists, corrupt oligarchs and poorly trained and equipped (and led - look at Debaltseve) conscripts who are deserting in droves.

    We are aware the vast majority of the roughly 1 MILLION refugees fled East, to Russia. Not West, to the people trying to kill them. We are aware the vast majority of the killed civilians were killed by the Ukrainian coup government using artillery and that those same forces are being trained and equipped by our subservient governments.

    We are aware Ukraine is a financial black hole that our governments will throw taxpayer dollars into, despite a crumbling domestic economy.

    Oh - on the neonazis, dont even try to deny it. The Guardiane even posted an article about 'women of the revolution' unintentionally exposing their neonazi leanings when they were photogrpahed next to a van showing the brigade insignia of the SS (yes, that SS, WAFFEN SS)

    Long and short, the battle for 'hearts and minds' is long lost. If the US agitates for WWIII to save their bankrupt state, I think the leaders best check their heads are still attached to their shoulders. People are the power, not the banksters and their puppets.

    This conflict has done more to awaken Western citizens to the utter abrogation of our soverignity to US aggression than any of their previous illegal adventures. We dont like what we see.

    sodtheproles -> MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:34

    That's why they called shelling their own citizens an anti-terrorist operation. The Americans have a lot to answer for, not least their abuse of the English language. Anyone remember 'collateral damage'?

    MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:26

    I thought the IMF was not permitted to lend to countries in a state of civil war

    todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 08:08

    Poroshenko: Ukrainian army among five strongest in Europe

    Yet they have to "orderly" retreat in the middle of the night from Debaltsevo leaving dead and injured behind as well as equipment. Furthermore they keep on begging for more money to arm these army while the population cannot afford to feed itself...

    retsdon 25 Mar 2015 07:56

    As this well-researched article at the Saker makes evident, the Ukrainian leadership is a rat's nest of criminals, thugs, and carpet-baggers. It debases western credibility entirely that we even deal with such people at all, leave alone support and court them. And it dirties the rest of us by association.

    http://thesaker.is/kolomoisky-finishing-ukraine-up/

    ivan2034 -> Drifterrus 25 Mar 2015 07:47

    Victoria Nuland's background is even more telling. Quite frightening in fact.

    todaywefight -> Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 07:28

    I have taken the liberty to copy your post to a series of documents that I keep since the beginning of this sad episodes...as your comment is one of the very few posts that is solid and deeply relevant, as such it affects ones feelings just as deeply, thank you.

    sodtheproles -> HollyOldDog 25 Mar 2015 07:03

    Robert Parry
    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/

    SHappens 25 Mar 2015 06:49

    Moody's has downgraded Ukraine's "long-term issuer and government debt ratings to Ca from Caa3" with a "negative" outlook. The ratings agency said in a press release that its move "reflects Moody's expectation that Ukraine's government and external debt levels will remain very high, in spite of the debt restructuring and plans to introduce reforms."
    https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Ukraines-sovereign-ratings-to-Ca-outlook-remains-negative--PR_320764

    Meanwhile:

    Crimea has been experiencing an upsurge in development following its reunification with Russia thanks to the country's investment in the republic. "Crimea has not developed at such a pace as it has in the past year over the past twenty years.

    Unfortunately, the 23-year-long tenure in Ukraine has been the time of regression for Crimea. The Ukrainian government did not invest a single penny into Crimea, at the same time it sucked out all possible resources from here," Polonsky told Sputnik, stressing that Russia "is taking an entirely different route" which is making a "drastic" difference on the peninsula. But even if Crimea residents were told not to expect any investment from the Russian government a year ago, they would have "still made the choice of becoming part of Russia," the minister stressed. The social standards, salaries and the level of medical services in Crimea grew sharply in the past year.

    Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 06:49

    "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour".

    Listen, Ms 'Insider Trading' Jaresco, and I'll tell you what you and your country have actually done to Britain.

    You've damaged our economy by unjust sanctions, and used our taxpayers' money to fund your murderous war on your own people. British citizens are reduced to living off food banks, but you're demanding we divert our spending into NATO defence – to fight an enemy that would never have been a threat if you hadn't interfered in the first place.

    You've released a poison into Europe that will take generations to cure. You've split us in two, revived old racial hatreds, and brought back the spectre of Nazism to the countries that suffered from it most. You've forced us into provocations that have brought us to the very brink of war – and one that threatens to destroy us all.

    You've insulted our war dead by your revision of history. You've hailed Hitler as a liberator, deified those who committed mass murder under the Nazi flag, and defiled monuments to those who resisted him. You've made our war sacrifices worthless, and forced us to stand by while Nazi sympathizers glorify their heroes at the site of our own Cenotaph. You've forced us to insult our war allies by snubbing the May 9th acknowledgement of the millions of Russian dead whose sacrifice enabled our own country to survive. You've dishonoured us all.

    You've taken away our self-respect, and put us for ever on the wrong side of history. You've forced us to condone the destruction of democracy, and made us complicit in war crimes. You've put us in breach of the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Conventions for the protection of Embassies, and even made us abandon the presumption of innocence. God knows we didn't have much moral credibility after our colonial past, but you've taken from us every last little shred of decency we had left.

    And now you want us to pay for the privilege?

    No, Ms Jaresco. You can take your begging bowl back to Washington and tell them, 'You broke it – you own it.' Get them to stop the war, bring justice to the innocent, and give freedom to the people of the East. Get them to help those ordinary decent Ukrainians who only wanted the chance of a better life, and were misled by you to their ruin. Get them to rebuild Donbass, give back homes to the 1.5 million displaced people, help and compensate the bereaved families of those 60,000 dead. And when they've done all that, then it'll be time to start thinking about what reparations you can make to us…

    sodtheproles -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:49

    Let's hope she's booked her ticket
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

    Goodthanx -> oleteo 25 Mar 2015 06:43

    Its fantastic isnt it? You couldnt script better characters than a self styled President in rent a Prop Poroshenko, Pre Menstraul Yatsintook, 'Its a miracle i can walk' Tymoshenko.. The list goes on..

    TrueBrit1066 -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:42

    Thanks for this. Why does this not surprise me? :)

    oleteo -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:37

    I'd wish a success to Ukies but ultranationalism can't be a success

    HollyOldDog -> justTR 25 Mar 2015 06:37

    Except for those countries who refuse to keep filling the pot.

    Sargv_ -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:35

    > The only countries in recent history that have resorted to mass killings of their own people are Russia, China and Cambodia

    USSR was not Russia, not even by a long shot. For starters, Russians were a minority on all levels of early-days soviet state machine, and were, by far, the most oppressed nation during communist rule. Consider the gains and losses for all the nations occupied by bosheviks prior to communist revolution, and after the Soviet collapse.

    It's Russians, Chechens Russian Germans who lost the most, while Georgia - a homeland of Stalin, and Ukraine - a homeland of Kruschev and Brezhnev, gained enormous territories and industries. They lost most of this in just 25 years, but that's anothe story.

    todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:32

    Sorry I don't see any mention of demonstrations and the army getting ready mate..just give me a link please

    Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:32

    she is the only candidate who does not scream for war. People, especially his allies, are fed up with Yatsenyuk's foul, nonsense, warmongering language. Let's see who will be the winner of this fight for power.

    todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:28

    Thank you very much

    oleteo 25 Mar 2015 06:27

    Good girl, good start.

    At the beginning there was the begging for money, now and then there would be an incessant begging to write off.

    Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:27

    Porkoshenko's website.

    Verbum -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:25

    The US spent 5 billion between 1991 and 2014 on the development of standard democratic institutions in Ukraine

    Is Kolomoisky and his private army one of the 'standard democratic institutions' funded by the US in Ukraine?

    Verbum -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:23

    Kolomoisky, Poroshenko, Yats... Is it the 'democracy' the Yanks spent 5 billion dollars on? The dollar doesn't seem to buy much nowadays. And Nuland's cookies to top it all up... All wasted.

    Sargv_ 25 Mar 2015 06:21

    With all that constant 'donate for the good cause' narrative here and there, Ukraine should finally drop the idea of being a sovereign state (as they are clearly suck at this) and register as a World-first 45mln-strong charity organisation instead.

    Goodthanx -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:19

    I say let them! The fighters of DPR are looking forward to the resupply!


    Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:18

    Finance minister Natalie Jaresko...

    Interesting notes on the career/life of Ms Jaresko:

    - Born in America, still a US citizen.
    - Not a Ukrainian citizen until 2014, Poroshenko pushed a special law through parliament in order to make her FM.

    - Her dual citizenships are illegal under Ukrainian law (they seem to be OK with it).

    - Held jobs at: The US State Dept, the US Treasury and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

    Just another sign that the USA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the mess in Kiev, and it certainly isn't about grabbing money, influence and/or natural resources.

    Goodthanx -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:17

    I have never lived there, but a close examination and reading of history plus an attitude that remembers we are talking about human life.. Is enough to convince me to the virtues of this cause.

    ID075732 -> Parangaricurimicuaro 25 Mar 2015 06:16

    But it's no secret where she came from!

    todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:16

    Apparently he resigned... and Poroshenko accepted his resignation and installed one of his followers to the position.

    Do you have any links to the rest of your post? if that lady becomes the PM Ukraine is gone for all money.

    Sargv_ -> nickpossum 25 Mar 2015 06:15

    > Two simple truths. The West does not want a war with Russia. If Russia attacks the West, it will be destroyed.

    If Russia attacks the West, it'll attack the part it can reach, which is, obviously, the EU.

    So the outcome will be slightly more complicated: Russia attacks The West, EU and Russia are both destroyed, while The Rest of The West grab all the gains (nobody will ever mention that $17tln debt; there'd be no high-end market competition wit US goods - and so on, and so forth).

    There's only one winner in this conflict, no matter how hot it will get: the USoA. Europeans are predefined to the role of economical donor for pro-US Ukraine at best, WW3 cannon fodder at worst.

    todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 06:12

    What is sad is that, having lived in the country for many years I feel so sorry for the people, the normal people, not the Gucci, Ferragamo and Zegna brigade the guys wearing $4000 suits wth a black tee shirt, the ones that their idea of being part of parliament is to sit the whole day in Passage, or go to Da vinci fo lunch or go to Mafia for dinner and look important when their chauffeurs open the door of the black mercs a disgusting low life.

    It will never be the same, forces were unleashed last year by Nuland that helped create a generational hatred and the loss of life not to mention the lose of 1/5 of the country and if Poroshenko or anyone else think that the eggs can be unscrambled I can advise them that they do not need the IMF but a bunch of Clinical Psychiatrists

    HollyOldDog vr13vr 25 Mar 2015 06:09

    But it won't last. The Anericans always screwup.

    Sargv_ -> geedeesee 25 Mar 2015 06:06

    > "Jaresko said that, in five years, she wanted to see a Ukraine at peace"

    "In five years I want to be a five years sober." We definitely need an international AA for country-wide hangovers caused by 'we are the people' riots.

    HollyOldDog -> someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 06:05

    But the USA fallout is to destroy whatever is left of the Ukraine economy leaving it citizens with far higher food and fuel costs.

    While Russia is finding new friends and markets the World over. Strange how many countries are now learning that if you don't protect your back then expect an USA knife trying to rip your guts out .

    DerFremde -> HollyOldDog 25 Mar 2015 06:05

    wag the dog, Holly, wag the dog

    first law of democratisation, you will open your markets to us in full. nationalised assets will be privatised and you will take out IMF loans to do the 'restructuring' not the so-called investors. this debt will be paid for by the population in due course.

    Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:03

    Kolomoisky sacked by Poroshenko, the former's private army is on alert to attack government buildings, hundreds protest in Kiev asking Yatsenyuk's head, the reports suggest that the finance minister, the Chicago born lady to become PM, the junta still shells Donetsk towns, and what the Americans want: send more weapons. Only continuing conflict would save the Americans' crooks in Kiev in short term.

    todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 05:57

    Yes actually I saw one of the interviews, she wants the Russians not to call the debt, she also wants peace and then she turns the switch on and talks like Nuland and proceeds to shit all over Russia, It think the girl will be done like a dinner in no time...

    todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:47

    Probably the most important part about your posts is that they are totally disconnected from reality, and, as such we do not really have to even give you the courtesy of an answer.

    todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:42

    ...the 2,000,000 to 3,600,000 killed in Vietnam and the millions left without limbs and the destruction of their cities. How about the hundreds of thousands dead in latin america due to the intervention of the US...the exceptional country...the thing is that all these deaths were based on lies invented by your country

    AlexRS -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 05:41

    Don't lie. Russia defaulted only on its internal debt in 1998. Russia cleared Soviet debt by 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945924/Reborn-Russia-clears-Soviet-debt.html

    todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:37

    What exactly do you call the targeted wooden buildings and the firebombing of these buildings by 300 b29s killing an US official "100000" and two days later the bombing of Hyrishima and Nagasaky, the 1,000,000 killed in Ira


    Goodthanx -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 02:36

    As a Jew myself, i can tell you that Kolomovsky and the likes of him, does not represent me or the greater Ukrainian Jewish community. Referencing a 'dial-a-jew', does not provide validity to your argument, just provides further fuel to the propoganda fire.

    Lastly i believe the question was, 'who do you work for?'

    MSM is full of articles and comments that demonise Putin and Russia. The problem is, there is no where near enough attention and scrutiny brought towards the country that staged a violent coup helped by neo nazis who now control critical ministerial positions in the Rada, declared an ATO on their own civilian population in the east, murdered opposition and intimidate the rest, burn thru international funds and pocket the rest, war crimes..etc

    These are the issues.

    PlatonKuzin 25 Mar 2015 02:04

    Kolomoisky id no longer a governor but the questions remain and the conflict between the oligarchs in Ukraine gains strong momentum. What next?

    todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 01:58

    In 1887, the struggle for control of Hawaii was at its height as David Kalakaua was elected to the Hawaiian throne. King Kalakaua signed a reciprocity treaty with the United States making it possible for sugar to be sold to the U.S. market tax-free, but the haole - or "white" - businessmen were still distrustful of him. They criticized his ties to men they believed to be corrupt, his revival of Hawaiian traditions such as the historic Hula, and construction of the royal Iolani Palace. A scandal involving Kalakaua erupted in the very year he was crowned, and it united his opponents, a party of businessmen under the leadership of Lorrin Thurston. The opposition used the threat of violence to force the Kalakua to accept a new constitution that stripped the monarchy of executive powers and replaced the cabinet with members of the businessmen's party. The new constitution, which effectively disenfranchised most native Hawaiian voters, came to be known as the "Bayonet Constitution" because Kalakaua signed it under duress.

    Replace Nuland for Thurston and there you have a good example of there is no reason for reinventing the wheel.

    irishinrussia -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 01:16

    Russia is not broke by any stretch of the imagination. It has a very low debt to GDP ratio. It still has $360 billion in reserves (even if that figure continues to decline at its current rate - unlikely as the rouble has stabilised - that would still give them almost three years before that money ran out). The budget deficit for last year was very small. This year it is projected to be around 3% (incidentally, about what the US deficit was last year and is projected to be for the next ten years). It continues to run a balance of payments surplus even with lower oil prices. The situation in Russia is certainly not peachy, but it is a far cry from "broke".

    Demi Boone -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 01:09

    Oh Vlad, take a look at the marches honoring the Ukranian SS that just took place across Ukraine where thousands showed up, or the SS armbands worn by extreme right participants in the Maiden or the Azov Battalion who brags of their SS devotion (but they are quick to denounce the atrocities of WW2) I challenge you to show any article promoting NeoNazi's in Russia. You have obviously not read any Russian History to know the hatred these people have for the idea of the Nazi. Your accusations of Nemstov's murder are pure speculation based on your biased opinion. There were no Nuclear threats made by Russia rather they were saying that all systems were on alert. When a Russian plane flies close to the UK you had better believe they are on the same high alert. With regards to your statement about News credibility most media sources in the US whitewash the news. Did you read anything in any major papers about the people who were run over by Ukranian forces and given permission to "shoot to kill" if the crowd got too out of hand and began to fight back?

    someoneionceknew -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 00:57

    What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova?

    CIA, buddy. She's a company gal.

    someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 00:51

    "The good news is that we have made great progress on stability."

    Words fail me.

    These CIA types certainly can gild a lily when required.


    Jerome Fryer normankirk 25 Mar 2015 00:44

    The Russian economy in GDP terms is expected to have a 5% contraction year on year, then pick up growing. That assumes no favourable changes in oil price, and doesn't factor in Putin's attempts to steer the Russian economy into greater self-sufficiency. Oil is likely to recover, and the attempt to shift / diversify the economy could go either way.

    (At a minimum, they will be replacing as much of Ukraine's former supply of critical components as quickly as possible. Russia have been handing out citizenship papers and jobs like candy to any Ukrainians that were working in the defense related industries. Putin isn't trying to rebuild the USSR, but he is trying to maintain the capabilities of the USSR by drawing critical personnel -- and allegedly machinery -- into Russia.)


    Jerome Fryer -> BorninUkraine 25 Mar 2015 00:33

    It is very sad.

    Western propaganda used to be a lot smarter, presumably because of the 'clash of ideologies' background. Now we are back to the old, pre-Communist threat, standard of "The Kaiser eats babies".

    Most people tend to only 'believe' this nonsense at a superficial level, though. Ask them about the 'reporting' and you'll find that they consider the assertions dubious. Effective propaganda is intended to operate at more of a subliminal / emotional level, and bypass our thinking abilities.

    Jerome Fryer -> pantaraxia 25 Mar 2015 00:25

    He is also president of European Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates into backing from powerful Jewish interests in the US and Israel.

    That is debatable, and incorrect. See here for why he resigned from the ECJC and started his own "European Jewish Union".

    Kolomoisky is no less divisive than Poroshenko. He is, however, very much an 'old school' Jewish mafia type -- and prone to blatant aggressive behaviour such as the recent takeover of the UkrTransNafta building by his 'private security'.

    Oh, and it appears that Poroshenko has gone with the option to try to arrest Kolomoisky's 'private security', as a start. (Source seems to be RT, though, so about as reliable / unreliable as the BBC.)

    todaywefight -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 00:17

    Are you from the newly created Ministry of Truth in Kyiv? or "ukraine tomorrow"?
    The former is an oxymoron Truth and Ukraine should never be on the same sentence unless it says Ukraine failed to tell the truth...that is acceptable...

    I dont know Vladimire...in view of the current events and the little fight amongst the Oligarchs...and accusations against Kolomoisky, his partners and his rather strong response, I am not sure who the crazy ones are here.

    HollyOldDog ID075732 25 Mar 2015 00:15

    I could be wrong but I half remember a political cartoon depicting the USA as a Wreaking Ball against some other economy. I will have to check later.

    BorninUkraine rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 00:04

    Wow! The circus keeps going.

    Poroshenko relieved Kolomoisky of duties of Dniepropetrovsk governor (directive 173/2015).

    In response, Kolomoisky promised to take his battalions from the war zone with LNR/DNR and direct them to take over Kremenchug power plant and the office of Ukrtransgas (Ukrainian "state" company involved in transport of natural gas). Mega-thieves started all-out struggle, revealing the criminal nature of current Ukrainian state for all to see in the process.

    How can Western media report such a piece of evidence directly incriminating the US and EU?

    Old_Donkey 24 Mar 2015 23:53

    Let's hope that Natalie Jaresko's skills as a financier are better than her skills as a diplomat. She's asking Russia to accept a haircut on $3 billion of debt, and Ukraine's situation is so desperate that you can't blame her for trying. But if she wants the Kremlin to "buy into this vision", she will need to learn some manners and show Russia some more respect first. Jaresko presents Ukraine as a country that is "protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour". No one who wanted to persuade Vladimir Putin to restructure the debt would say that unless they were either very stupid or dutifully repeating State Department propaganda (or both).

    The fundamental problem with the Ukrainian government is that it is incapable of restoring stability to Ukraine and instead seems hell-bent on a continuation of the civil war. The Kiev government remains absolutely opposed to finding a political solution to the problems in Eastern Ukraine and refuses to recognize the authority of the rebel leaders, who, in Donetsk and Lugansk, are clearly "the only game in town". Jaresko's own government is busily wrecking the Minsk 2 agreement and has thereby enormously increased the political risks attached to any new loans. Already, Ukrainian forces have violated the ceasefire by firing on Russian journalists and OSCE observers near Shirokino.

    The purpose of an IMF loan is not to enable a country to rearm or to continue fighting a civil war but to help it to rebuild its financial system. Until we can be confident that Kiev is committed to implementing Minsk 2, all IMF loans to the Kiev government would therefore be irresponsible and offered on a dishonest basis. The IMF is specifically prohibited from offering war loans by its own charter. At the moment, it looks as though Kiev needed Minsk 2 merely for form's sake, so that it could screw some more cash out of Christine Lagarde to pay for a reconquest of the Donbass once spring arrives.

    Madame Lagarde's career has always benefitted from American support, and her eagerness to return the favour is understandable. She knows how the game is played but she also knows that loyalty to a patron has its limits. So if Jaresko and her State Department controllers expect Madame Lagarde to violate the IMF's own rules by continuing to fund Ukraine's neo-Nazi war machine, they may find themselves disappointed. Madame Lagarde still has a reputation to protect but Jaresko lost hers as soon as she joined the criminal regime in Kiev.

    Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:46

    "we are lucky to have the support of the IMF."

    Yes well according to Jaresko's biography which includes very cosey relationship with the IMF, i dont think luck played any hand in it.

    What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova? Conflict of interest? Or just business as usual?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=70651&privcapId=23915&previousCapId=47577789&previousTitle=Shatkin%2520Arbor,%2520Inc.

    ID075732 24 Mar 2015 23:43

    Jaresko said she could not complain that Ukraine had been ignored while the European Union tried to sort out the problems of Greece.

    It's a joke isn't it?

    Jaresko parachuted in by the US to help shore-up the coup they created financially and think it should have the same status as Greece. Now claiming a similar restructuring package that the EU refused for Tsipras?

    The difference being that Ukraine is not part of the EU, nor part of NATO.

    Jaresko is claiming that Russia is a threat to Europe? We all know Putin's big idea was for more trade integration with Europe that was the actual threat the US didn't want. So they turned Ukraine into a buffer against this happening, although its become more of a punch bag.

    Another wreaking US intervention, we're all wise to this now. And when it's wreaked buy it cheap - great for Amerika's business. A win win for US backed business, a lose lose for the Ukrainian people!

    EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 23:31

    Well, the oligarch war in Ukraine is intensifying. Kolomoiskyi threatened the head of Naftogas to take his battalions out of the war zone and to occupy the office of Ukrtransgas and Kremenchug power station. Poroshenko just fired Kolomoiskyi from his position of the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, which Kolomoiskyi is not about to give up, of course. The Ukrainian parliament, Rada, in the meantime is considering privatization of Privatbank owned by Kolomoiskyi, the move that could crush whatever is left of the Ukrainian financial system. Curiouser and curiouser.

    I do hope that even those people in the West who had no clue before now realize that kind of personages their governments brought to power in Ukraine. Ukraine is in chaos, there is no government to speak of, and all these colorful individuals keep their personal airplanes ready for immediate departure.


    Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:09

    "There is always a risk of a default," she added, noting that several factions in Ukraine's parliament were demanding that the government go down that route.

    In Ukraine, we call it the classic 'Ha Ha..screw you maneuver.'

    twiglette 24 Mar 2015 23:04

    This absurd narrativeve that Ukraine is a beacon of Western democracy! It is a corrupt racist state whose current elite came to power in a U.S. inspired coupe that threw out the elected government that wished to join Russia. It has fought a viscous war against its Russian east. It deserves nothing.


    rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 23:03

    Looks like Kolomoiskyi has had it. The "Kyiv Post" just ran an article in which they mention that Kolo has (gasp) "connections to organised crime".
    :-D

    Last week they were *very* careful about what they said about Kolomoiskyi to the point of barely reporting the events. But now the rats are fleeing the sinking ship.

    Kolo had better skedaddle before we see yet another mysterious defenestration.

    OneTop 24 Mar 2015 22:58

    Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so Ukraine can move towards stability

    Jaresko is a US citizen who was appointed by Nuland [Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs] to run the finance ministry of the Ukraine. (the Ukraine granted her citizenship -- to give the appearance of legitimacy).

    The Ukraine is run by very powerful oligarchs who have to date, much more political and real power than the western installed and supported Poroshenko.

    There is no doubt the US / West will continue to support Poroshenko as he desperately needs US support to maintain his position, the more powerful "other" oligarchs with their private armies do not.

    Jaresko is simply parroting US diktat (her paymasters) which is building the narrative that Ukraines' debt to Russia (primarily for energy) be legally declared as odious debt.

    Which means that the Ukraine could stiff Russia for the billions it owes for goods and services already rendered.

    In plain words, Jaresko is a mindless mandarin installed by America in an effort to wrest Ukraine from their evil Russian masters.


    Vaska Tumir Kata L 24 Mar 2015 22:11

    America's Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, has now informed him, in no uncertain terms, that "the law of the jungle" must end in Ukraine.

    Ambassador Pyatt's statements are taken very seriously by Ukrainian Government officials.

    Really?

    They ARE the "law of the jungle" enforcers in Ukraine, as Pyatt knows perfectly well. In this instance, what we have is a situation in which a set of criminals of exactly the same sort as those in power but currently not in the government itself (Kolomoysky and his lot) is stronger than the set of criminals the USA put in power in Kiev. That's what comes from having a foreign policy based on pure banditry.

    ChristopherMyers 24 Mar 2015 22:09

    I realize this may be a very bizarre thought, but the situation here in the Ukraine bears a striking resemblance to the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 by the United States.

    BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:57

    It's not only the media, it is much broader than that. When I left USSR in 1991, most educated people believed BBC, Voice of America, and Western media in general, and had fairly good feelings about the US and Europe.

    When I started reading Russian news sites last year (simply because the Western narrative about Ukrainian crisis made no sense to someone who has friends and relatives all over Ukraine), I was appalled by the level of anti-American and anti-EU feelings. Americans are called almost invariably "pindós" [Cyrillic spelling пиндос], which is a pretty derogative term, the US is called "pindostan", and most people think that Western media lie almost as much as Ukrainian media, which are notorious for ludicrous lies (like the story that Russia used nukes in the fight for Lugansk airport).

    In the USSR I always knew that Soviet media are spewing propaganda, using half-truths and blatant lies. However, compared to current reporting on Ukraine in the Western media, even Soviet papers look truthful. It is very sad.

    pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 21:45

    It will be fascinating to see which way the US goes with Kolomoisky vs. Poroshenko.

    On the one hand a lot of time and energy has been expended propping up the Poroshenko gov't. In spite of this he is rapidly losing popularity with the populace and may be seen as expendable. A convenient scapegoat for the failed military operation in eastern Ukraine. However another regime change at this point would threaten the country with absolute chaos and would make external financing arrangements problematic to say the least.

    Kolomoisky is hooked into the US state department, via Bursima, the murky gas company where both VP Biden's son and Kerry's stepson(?) are members of its Board. He is also president of European Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates into backing from powerful Jewish interests in the US and Israel. Kolomoisky and Nuland seem to be kindred spirits both in their advocacy for a military solution as well as their general ziocon tendencies.

    Interesting times indeed.


    whitemangotnodreamin -> normankirk 24 Mar 2015 21:41

    Because they are probably under instructions to support Poroshenko and his side kick no matter what..lest they want their hard drives smashed to smithereens in the carpark as it happened before. They did it with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Torture and Kidnapping, Diego Garcia...all of these glossed over...lately even the "suicide" of 7 party of regions members they reported as 4 and did not open for comments...such is life


    frankverismo -> Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 21:39

    "I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the rampant corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article."

    I don't think you get how this works. Or you simply don't wish to see the sheer depth of the venality at work. Jaresko has been put there by Washington. The plan is exactly the opposite of granting Ukraine its sovereign independence but rather to put it even further into debt thus putting it completely at the mercy of outside forces. It's already a black hole - and she's asking for the death blow.

    "And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have been the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous leaders too."

    Correct.

    "Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present"

    Kindly tell us all about this 'aggression'. Be specific. You are, I assume, aware that Russia has had its Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea since the 18th century? What was Russia going to do when a US-backed coup happened on her doorstep? Hand her naval base over to NATO and let Kiev do to Crimea what they've been doing in Donbass? Really? Be honest. What would you have done?

    "Ukraine's failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions, tied to the feet of a sinking Russia."

    Were the Russian economy remotely similar to the US' this might be so. But it isn't. It has a low debt-to-GDP ratio, an expanding manufacturing base and countries other than Europe and the US perfectly willing to trade with it (and not in US$). The sanctions are certainly an annoyance as is the low oil price but long-term this will only serve to further divorce Russia from the West's sick fiat system - a very healthy thing.

    rogermell1e Systematic 24 Mar 2015 21:34

    "I wonder how long can The Guardian & Co."

    I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere) will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled.

    This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated.

    TOR2000 24 Mar 2015 21:33

    Kiev continues to violate the ceasefire (OSCE):

    Between 09:40 and 10:40hrs, whilst at an observation point in the eastern outskirts of Sopyne (government-controlled, 15km east of Mariupol, 2.5km west of Shyrokyne) the SMM heard heavy engagement of small arms, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers and mortars, including 70 outgoing 82mm and 120mm mortar shells. The SMM assessed that the fire originated from one kilometre to the east and was directed further east of the SMM's position. An additional ten 82mm mortar shells hit 400m east of the SMM's position, some of which detonated in the air indicating that they were fitted with distance or time delay fuses. Due to the security situation, the SMM relocated to another observation point 4km north-west of Shyrokyne ("DPR"-controlled, 20km east of Mariupol, 102km south of Donetsk). Between 11:33 and 12:06hrs the SMM observed three incoming 82mm mortar shells exploding above Ukrainian Armed Forces positions north of Berdyanske (government-controlled, 18km east of Mariupol). It also heard small arms and light weapons fire as well as ten mortar detonations but was not able to ascertain the direction and calibre.
    The SMM unarmed/unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) monitored both sides of the contact line east of Mariupol. At 17:38hrs, in Shyrokyne the SMM UAV observed outgoing mortar fire from a Ukrainian Armed Forces position.

    The SMM revisited four Ukrainian Armed Forces heavy weapons holding areas, all of which comply with the respective withdrawal lines and remain in situ. All serial numbers are consistent with previous visits. Additionally, the SMM intended to monitor two additional holding areas, but these sites no longer contained any heavy weapons.

    BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:33

    Yes, the competition between two mega-thieves, Kolomoisky and Poroshenko, intensified in the last few days. Considering that the head of SBU (Ukrainian KGB) Nalivaichenko, who is CIA agent and US citizen, took the side of Poroshenko, the US plans to play against Kolomoisky. This does not guarantee Poroshenko win, though: this is about a lot of money to be made on oil, gas, etc, and then on grain that will be paid by farmers in return for credits for gas, diesel, and lubricants they need for planting.

    It is well known (not in the West, I am sure, where people are fed ridiculous lies) that for this amount of money Kolomoisky would kill his own mother, let alone Poroshenko or even US ambassador.

    So buying some popcorn is a good idea.

    whitemangotnodreamin -> Jerome Fryer 24 Mar 2015 21:21

    No prospect to repay 'loans' makes those loans unlikely.

    Precisely, what Jaresko is essentially saying is give us the money but don't ask for it back... Nick is a confused soul...or a purposely confused one.


    whitemangotnodreamin 24 Mar 2015 20:41

    I actually watched one of her interviews on Bloomberg, full of softballs, she seldom if ever answered a question, in particular what would happen if Russia demands payment at the end of the year, and the fact that they are asking creditors to take a rather large haircut. The softest thing about this woman are her teeth, but as we will see being hard does not translate to being tough, hit a brick in the right place and it breaks.

    So let's see who is Natalie Jaresko:

    " A Chicago-born investment banker who received her Ukrainian citizenship in December 2014, she. is Ukraine's finance minister and in total control of Ukrainian financial policy. In the late '80s and early '90s, she just so happened to hold several positions at the US State Department before taking the position of Chief of the Economic Section of the US Embassy in Ukraine. She also managed the USAID-financed Western NIS Enterprise Fund, which kindly provided funds for 'pro-democracy' movements in Belarus, Moldova and, predictably, Ukraine. "

    Ms.Jaresko, is involved in court proceedings, again. This time for breaching US passport laws. She was previously a US State Dept. employee and was granted Ukrainian citizenship so she could take the job.

    She has previously been in court over the misappropriation of US funding through her previous company Horizon Capital. This company just happened to be a partner of Yatsenyuk's pre maidan campaign. The other party in the case is her husband who she has been attempting to silence by court order. She has also so far managed to silence her former husband spilling the beans of some significant loan improprieties.

    But, hey what would one expect of a President who, was secretly palling up to the US's embassy in Kyiv when he was a minister for 3 different administrations in Ukraine, a man whose latest Human resource success was the employment of "Help me or I'll eat my red tie" Saakashvili a man wanted in Georgia who was being kept quietly in the US until now.

    bobby_fisher 24 Mar 2015 20:33

    US citizen, financial shaister and former State Department employee Natalie Jaresko is well positioned as Finance minister of Ukraine to oversee implementation of the H.R. 5859, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, that among other things gives control to Washington over Ukrainian Energy policies, provides protections to American oil, gas, biotech, financial corporate interests over legitimate interests of Ukrainian people.

    This seals the fate of Ukraine as US colony, instead of an independent state.

    Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 20:32

    I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the rampant corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article.

    And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have been the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous leaders too.

    Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present, but there will have to be real and substantial changes in the way Ukrainians conduct their businesses and government before they're going to get the kind money the finance minister is asking for.

    It does seem fitting though, that given the economic ties between the two countries, Ukraine's failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions, tied to the feet of a sinking Russia.


    HollyOldDog DerFremde 24 Mar 2015 20:23

    The Russian Steppes? The Ukrainian fracking has not shown commercial quantities of gas/oil. To try the same techniques in East Ukraine would mean closing down the existing coal mines first and even then there is a serious risk of contaminating the fresh water both underground and surface waters. All this with only minor prospects of finding commercial quantities of Fracked oil/gas.

    If the existing cialthey mines in East Ukraine were closed down then where would West Ukraine get its coal of a suitable quality to be used in its coal fired power stations?

    HollyOldDog Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 20:11

    And not forgetting the looting of the Iraq museums by any sneak theif who walked through the unguarded doors . Only the Oil Ministry was important to the Americans.


    pantaraxia HollyOldDog 24 Mar 2015 20:09

    The Japanese had been attempting to surrender months before Hiroshima. The back channels went through the USSR with no constructive response from the American side.

    According to a number of analysts there was another reason for dropping the nuclear bombs - to showcase to the USSR and the world the raw power available to the US military. A scare tactic.

    Manolo Torres -> DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 19:30

    That seems indeed a very good book, but one may end up extremely disgusted after reading it. From the review, to give our friends an idea of what Mrs Jaresko might be up to now and why her urgent plead:

    An unprecedented account of life in Baghdad's Green Zone, a walled-off enclave of towering plants, posh villas, and sparkling swimming pools that was the headquarters for the American occupation of Iraq. The Washington Post's former Baghdad bureau chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran takes us with him into the Zone; into a bubble, cut off from wartime realities, where the task of reconstructing a devastated nation competed with the distractions of a Little America-a half-dozen bars stocked with cold beer, a disco where women showed up in hot pants, a movie theater that screened shoot-'em-up films, an all-you-could-eat buffet piled high with pork, a shopping mall that sold pornographic movies, a parking lot filled with shiny new SUVs, and a snappy dry-cleaning service- much of it run by Halliburton

    In the vacuum of postwar planning, Bremer ignores what Iraqis tell him they want or need and instead pursues irrelevant neoconservative solutions-a flat tax, a sell-off of Iraqi government assets, and an end to food rationing. His underlings spend their days drawing up pie-in-the-sky policies, among them a new traffic code and a law protecting microchip designs, instead of rebuilding looted buildings and restoring electricity production.

    Mordantdude 24 Mar 2015 19:14

    Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she said.

    Meanwhile with the little help from "the free world" Ukraine downgraded further into junk by Moody's. Do you need more?

    pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 19:14

    The whole IMF program is a con job, transferring debt onto the Ukrainian government and its taxpayers (with the inevitable austerity and privatization programs to follow), while leaving the back door wide open to systemic abuse by well-connected oligarchs.

    As for where the IMF money which has been paid into the Ukrainian banks has gone, the report discloses … the banking system faced large foreign currency outflows (US$3.1 billion). Capital controls likely prevented larger outflows, but were not fully effective in stemming them."

    In short, of the $3.2 billion disbursed to the Ukrainian treasury by the IMF at the start of May, $3.1 billion had disappeared offshore by the middle of August.

    The looting continues.

    HollyOldDog -> nickpossum 24 Mar 2015 19:08

    There is a history of the other side of the coin with the actions of the USA. When Japan was on the point of defeat and negociations for Japan's surrender to the USA and its allies were occuring , the USA decided to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. A senior military spokesman from that period gave the reasons why.

    1. To force Japan to surrender more quickley and solely under the terms Givern solely by the USA.

    2. If it saved only ONE DAY of negociations then dropping nuclear bombs on Jalan would be worth it.

    Millions of Japanese citizens died either through the the blasts themselves or by radiation sickness just for the Americans to save ONE DAY of negociations.


    pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 18:36

    For the sordid backstory on the IMF loan to Ukraine:

    THE IMF IS POSTUREPEDIC, SO IGOR KOLOMOISKY CAN SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=12944#more-12944

    some excerpts:

    The new loan terms announced by the IMF last week, postpone reform by the commercial banks until well into 2016. In the meantime, the IMF says it will allow about $4 billion of its loan cash to be diverted to the treasuries of the oligarch-owned banks. That is almost one dollar in four of the IMF loan to Ukraine.

    The biggest beneficiary of last year's IMF financing is likely to repeat its good fortune, according to sources close to the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU). This is PrivatBank, controlled by Igor Kolomoisky , governor of Dniepropetrovsk region and financier of several units fighting on Kiev's side in the civil war.

    snip

    …Kolomoisky has been assured by the IMF that he is one of the few Ukrainian taxpayers to be safe from an increase in income tax.

    snip

    The justification for the PrivatBank payout, …
    For collateral, Gontareva (NBU Governor) has accepted a shareholding in the bank, plus an undisclosed number of airplanes owned by Kolomoisky, or by airlines associated with the Privat group. …. They are all bankrupt, and so the asset value is uncertain and the subject of creditor claims pending in several countries

    and the punch line:

    …." A Geneva banker with an office close to Kolomoisky's residence in the city comments: "Not even the Swiss have thought of war financing like this – funding civil war, then taking international loans for compensation, then banking the profit margin in Geneva."


    DIPSET Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 18:17

    Be fair, most of that money to rebuild Iraq was stolen by the same homicidal maniacs that destroyed the country in the first place.

    True that.

    You won't find a better tome than this book on the whole debacle and financial corruption the Yanks got into in Iraq.....

    http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_City.html?id=Tz2LT0gL_pYC&redir_esc=y

    Some juicy bits........

    Because of bureaucratic delays, only 2 percent of the $18.4 billion Supplemental had been spent. Nothing had been expended on construction, health care, sanitation, or the provision of clean water, and more money had been devoted to administration than all projects related to education, human rights, democracy, and governance combined. At the same time, the CPA had managed to dole out almost all of a $20 billion development fund fed by Iraq's oil sales, more than $1.6 billion of which had been used to pay Halliburton, primarily for trucking fuel into Iraq.

    Or this......

    The first guy who was assigned to help rebuild Iraq's health sector was named Skip Burkle. And Skip is physician. He has a Master's degree in public health. He has four postgraduate degrees. He teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. He had worked in Kosovo, in Somalia and in Northern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. He also was employed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a USAID colleague called him the single most talented post-conflict public health specialist in the U.S. government. But a few weeks after the fall of Saddam's government, Mr. Burkle was informed by an email from a superior at USAID that he was being replaced. He was told that the White House wanted, quote/unquote, "a loyalist" in the job. And I write in the book that Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the President.

    In his place was sent Jim Haveman. Jim Haveman does not have a medical degree. He was a social worker, and he was the former Director of Community Health in the State of Michigan. Prior to his stint in government, he had a little bit of international experience, but it was largely in the context of being a director for International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that promotes Christianity in the developing world in conjunction with development assistance. And prior to that, he headed up a large adoption agency in the State of Michigan that urges pregnant women not to have abortions.

    Well, Haveman showed up, and his view was that, look, Iraq didn't need a huge infusion of money to rebuild its hospitals, even though I and other people who have been to Iraqi hospitals have seen them to be thoroughly decrepit and really, you know, in need of an overhaul, and particularly with the violence that's wracking that country today and the number of injured from insurgent attacks. You would think that really putting resources toward rebuilding emergency rooms would be a top priority.

    Instead, Haveman devoted resources to other projects.

    And now they have moved onto Ukraine.

    Good luck is all i can say......

    Bosula -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:56

    Ukraine is a country not a business. The interests of countries are very different from fund mangers, hedge funds, etc.

    Very unusual to bring in a foreigner to a country to run a finance ministry when there are serious legal allegationS about propriety hanging over her head.

    Could you imagine bringing in a Sate Department official to run the finances of the UK?

    Ukraine has a lot of smart people...

    Another Nuland buddy meddling in Ukrainian affairs.


    DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:53

    now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament to the corporate takeover

    Ah yes, the faustian pact and it's tentacles are eating Ukraine up (and soon to spit out an empty husk) right in front of our eyes.

    Remember that American company that brought up all that pure and rich soil and agricultural land in Ukraine ?

    Look what's been happening back at the ranch in Yankee Land......

    After paying an original sum of $2.4 million to reimburse farmers for contaminating their fields with genetically modified wheat that had not even yet been approved for farming, Monsanto has been forced to pay another $350,000 in order to settle a class action lawsuit brought upon by numerous farmers from over seven different states.

    The news comes amid economic struggles for the biotech juggernaut that have resulted in the loss of share value and poor projections for the long term future. In last year's fourth quarter, Monsanto reported a loss of $156 million. And for the multi-billion dollar company, it's not about the monetary figure, but the future of its genetically modified creations that the public just simply isn't buying.

    In the latest legal settlement, we find that Monsanto's new method of simply paying off farmers just isn't going to cut it when it comes to international trade. Following the news that GMO wheat had contaminated nearby wheat supplies, Japan and South Korea suspended a number of wheat orders from the United States - a blow towards the national economy in full thanks to Monsanto.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-hit-with-fine-for-genetically-contaminating-wheat-supply/5438551

    And these are the "friends" Ukraine have placed their trust in since this whole think kicked off last year.

    Who needs enemies, eh ?

    Fascinating times...

    frankverismo -> nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:36

    "Why has the United States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?

    The Wolfowitz Doctrine is a giant boot sworn to crush national self-determination wheresoever on the globe it may be found. If ordinary Americans have to pay the bill, so be it.

    It's not much of a policy - but it's what happens when Washington is taken over by those the White House used to rightly refer to as 'The Crazies'.

    BunglyPete DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 17:30

    9

    10

    It gets better! Pinchuk made donations to the Clinton fund before Maidan, and not only this he was the top contributor.

    Back in September 2013 they all met with Blair, Branson, IMF and more to hash it all out in Yalta at a Pinchuk bash.

    Check vesti-ukr.com a Ukraine news site now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament to the coporate takeover. Fantastic stuff.

    Reply | Pick

    Report


    nnedjo -> nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:27

    Here's another interesting article on the same topic:
    How Not to Reconstruct Iraq, Afghanistan -- or America
    Peter Van Buren

    Some images remain like scars on my memory. One of the last things I saw in Iraq, where I spent a year with the Department of State helping squander some of the $44 billion American taxpayers put up to "reconstruct" that country, were horses living semi-wild among the muck and garbage of Baghdad. ...

    I flew home that same day, a too-rapid change of worlds, to a country in which the schools of my hometown in Ohio could not afford to pay teachers a decent wage. Once great cities were rotting away as certainly as if they were in Iraq, where those horses were scrabbling to get by.

    To this day I'm left pondering these questions: Why has the United States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?

    Canigou 24 Mar 2015 17:24

    I like the picture at the top of the article-----it shows burning tires, tired and hungry-looking men sitting on makeshift seats and shivering, trash strewn about, some motley men in the background standing about doing nothing, some sinister-looking smoke rising as a backdrop. A bleak, hellish, desperate, post-apocalyptic landscape.

    It seems to be from the Maidan riots of last year, but makes a fitting image for an article about the Ukraine economy of 2015.

    EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 17:23

    Well, people of Europe, it's time to open up your wallets to pay for the handiwork of your leaders. Ukraine is indeed a large country on the verge of economical collapse marred in a civil war. The present "government" did everything in its power to ruin the economy succeeding quite well. They alienated and then destroyed Donbass responsible for a good part of the country's economic output. They disrupted economic ties with Russia, the main trading partner, so most enterprises have closed or are closing throwing workers out on the streets.

    Give these people more money - and they'll spend some on the war they'll lose, and steal the rest. It is hard to tell whether they are more inept or corrupt - I guess they are just well-rounded individuals combining the highest degree of greed and corruption with utter stupidity/ineptitude and total disregard for their country's interests. One example: Ukraine is short on coal, but the miners in Volyne region, the only coal deposit outside of Donbass, haven't been paid for months and are now on strike. Is that what they mean by "structural reforms", not paying salaries any more?


    HollyOldDog -> UncleSam404 24 Mar 2015 17:23

    Interesting, so you agree with the Ukrainian Oligarts having a right to plunder the assets of Ukraine - Let the People eat cake. Perhaps this attitude that the West has to Ukraine will bolster the undercurrent of discontent within West Ukraine citizens to boot out its current government and Western Freeloaders.

    A French style revolution baring the gillotine is in the cards.


    nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:19

    Jaresko said the IMF loan was enough to stabilise the economy but not sufficient to "reorganise and renew" it.

    The intention to "reorganise and renew" Ukraine's economy is very generous indeed. However, before accepting this job, Ms. Jaresko should draw some lessons from previous unsuccessful attempts of the kind:

    The U.S. has spent more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. And it's not done yet.

    Released: January 18, 2013

    The United States has invested more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. $60.45 billion has been spent in Iraq, more than $100 billion in Afghanistan. For comparison, the U.S. spent less than $35 billion in today's dollars in Germany from 1946 through 1952...
    These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.


    babalua Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:18

    Ukraine is not to be compared to anything, let alone to a company. Parasite living off Russia, EU and everyone else. Should not really be a state. With crooks in power? Not only crooks, but literally scum?! You call it a country and compare it to whatever? Oh, god, wake up. You know , the funnu thing is that this black hole of Europe even wants to compete with Russia. Who are these people from U? Are they taking LSD?


    DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:17

    She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member. Theyre all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.

    :-)

    As always, you are spot on Sir.

    I'm sure you have read this but sharing is caring as they say lol..........

    Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons.

    ......a new Cold War took shape. Prominent neocons, including Nuland's husband Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which masterminded the Iraq War, hammered home the domestic theme that Obama had shown himself to be "weak," thus inviting Putin's "aggression."

    In May 2014, Kagan published a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," in which Kagan castigated Obama for failing to sustain American dominance in the world and demanding a more muscular U.S. posture toward adversaries.

    According to a New York Times article about how the essay took shape and its aftermath, writer Jason Horowitz reported that Kagan and Nuland shared a common world view as well as professional ambitions, with Nuland editing Kagan's articles, including the one tearing down her ostensible boss.

    Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on her husband's attack on Obama, she indicated that she held similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

    Horowitz reported that Obama was so concerned about Kagan's assault that the President revised his commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of the criticism and invited Kagan to lunch at the White House, where one source told me that it was like "a meeting of equals."

    I found this bit even more fascinating......

    And, whenever peace threatens to break out in Ukraine, Nuland jumps in to make sure that the interests of war are protected. Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande hammered out a plan for a cease-fire and a political settlement, known as Minsk-2, prompting Nuland to engage in more behind-the-scenes maneuvering to sabotage the deal.

    In another overheard conversation - in Munich, Germany - Nuland mocked the peace agreement as "Merkel's Moscow thing," according to the German newspaper Bild, citing unnamed sources, likely from the German government which may have bugged the conference room in the luxurious Bayerischer Hof hotel and then leaked the details.

    Picking up on Nuland's contempt for Merkel, another U.S. official called the Minsk-2 deal the Europeans' "Moscow bullshit."

    Nuland suggested that Merkel and Hollande cared only about the practical impact of the Ukraine war on Europe: "They're afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia." According to the Bild story, Nuland also laid out a strategy for countering Merkel's diplomacy by using strident language to frame the Ukraine crisis.

    "We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them," Nuland reportedly said

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    Yikes!!!

    Europe has got itself entangled in some bullshit it is going to regret for a looooong time.

    Hope them cookies tasted good and were worth it.

    BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 16:57

    Jaresko is quite possibly the most poorly judged person to be in her position, nevermind make these claims.

    She is not only a US citizen ex State Dept employee who was granted Ukrainian citizenship just to take the job, she is involved in other affairs that seriously question her credibility.

    Firstly she is involved in a lawsuit filed by her ex husband who claims she missappropriated USAID funds through her Ukrainian company Horizon Capital. She had a court injuction taken out to prevent her husband discussing the case.

    Furthermore, Horizon Capital funded Yatsenyuk's Open Ukraine campaign in the years before he came to power.

    The whole idea of the new government was to get rid of corruption and outside influence and move to a new honest and accountable system.

    Now we have a foreigner trying their hardest to push more IMF debt which benefits very few people other than those friendly to Jaresko; which would be, western financial and corporate interests, the main IMF stakeholders and the Yatsenyuk government.

    Ukrainian citizens lose pensions and fight over food in supermarkets as Jaresko is chaffeuered around in the most expensive car her ministry has ever bought.

    She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member. Theyre all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.

    nnedjo -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:56

    What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded that justified armed take over of police stations and tanks being sent into Ukraine.

    The government which the Ukrainian people voted in the previous election was violently overthrown in Kiev, by the people for which the people from the Donbas not only never voted, but in many cases not even know them.

    So, it's very simple. People from Donbas took care to protect their police stations and other government buildings that foreign visitors would not have entered into them.

    frankverismo 24 Mar 2015 16:56

    "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she said.

    Was a more incorrect statement ever made? The 'democracy' of which she speaks was, sadly, Victoria Nuland's idea of democracy: "the democracy Ukraine deserves".

    Does Ukraine really 'deserve' to be torn apart by warring oligarchs while being used by Washington as a proxy war theatre to bait Russia into a wider conflict? Should the Ukranian people have seen this coming? Probably. Did they ever have much choice in the matter? Little, if any. A bloody tragedy.


    brianboru1014 psygone 24 Mar 2015 16:44

    Russian economy going down the tubes?
    I very much doubt it. They have what the West needs, and lots of it

    The article is about this Ukrainian Foreign Minister, a woman with a begging bowl and really zero to offer the West except a monstrous headache. Too bad Bush's neocon Victoria Nuland (who should have been dismissed by Obama, but wasn't) but was able to poison everything in this particular part of the world with her now famous obscene comment referring to the European Union.[11] After discussing Ukrainian opposition figures Nuland stated that she preferred the United Nations as mediator, instead of the European Union, adding "Fuck the EU,".
    So as a result, the EU will give her zero.

    nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 16:34

    "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she [Mrs Jaresko] said.

    So, practically until yesterday, in its economic existence Ukraine relied on its "aggressive neighbor." This is what Russian PM Medvedev wrote about it in his article, at the end of last year:

    How Russia supported the Ukrainian economy

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of this (including the gas transport system) went to Ukraine. In addition, Russia took on the entire Soviet debt. Ukraine entered a new era in its history, free of any burden. That is why in 1991 its initial conditions for economic growth were among the best in the post-Soviet space. And that's precisely why the economy of independent Ukraine managed to remain afloat. Until recently, Ukraine was using its past achievements to survive. It continued to rely on cooperation with Russia. And it used our resources.

    Does Mrs. Jaresko thought to this when she said that "Ukraine protects Europe from its aggressive eastern neighbor." Okay, no problem. Aggressive eastern neighbor no longer needs to pumped gas and money to Ukraine with its invasive methods. As of this moment its "less aggressive" Western friends can take on this responsibility. In particular, the country of origin of Mrs. Jaresko, United States, could take care of it. It is also a very big country, and besides, they constantly boast to their economic superiority over Russia.
    Well then, if you wanted, here you go, be our guest!

    SHappens -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:26

    It's the same with ISIS supporters and ISIS terrorists, they need each other for their terrorist activities to spread

    Indeed, what we do not hear about is that while we fight the Islamic State, alias ISIS, in Iraq and Syria, Washington and the Caliphate are fighting on the same side in Ukraine.

    Nobody is paying attention to the role played by the Dudayev Battalion, a fighting force of Islamic radicals consisting of Chechens, but also including fighters from the Caucasus and some Ukrainians.

    geedeesee -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:24

    "What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded..."

    If the Russians had invaded it would be a war, whether declarations had been made or not. The Ukraine-Russian War. But there is no war between the two states. Kiev instead calls it an "anti-terror operation". Objective observers like me would call it a civil war.

    Steve Ennever 24 Mar 2015 15:48

    That's American, Natalie - I'm Ukrainian now - Jaresko, right? Strange, even David Cameron had some thoughts on this subject...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEwREymsSNU

    It appears supporting the overthrow of one democratically elected president because you didn't like him & he was corrupt, apparently doesn't remove the corruption.
    But other things should be raising the eyebrows of lenders right now, & Jaresko.

    Power grabs are in play. The Oligarch, Kolomoysky, worth an estimated $6 billion, is currently causing problems for Poroshenko & his fragile presidency.
    http://redpilltimes.com/kolomoysky-calls-for-federalisation-of-ukraine-ukrnafta-building-in-kiev-seized-by-dnepr-1-battalion-us-ambassador-pyatt-warns-kolomoysky/


    normankirk 24 Mar 2015 15:34

    This is a country that has given its life to democracy......

    The major loss of life has been in the Donbass, where its civilians have been killed in the tens of thousands.They are the ones who can be said to have given their lives to democracy.

    Once again "democracy" has been the trojan horse for corporate interests and the Wolfowitz doctrine.

    I hope that one day Ukraine does achieve a true democracy,but it wont be through the efforts of the criminal Nuland-Pyatt crowd.

    DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 15:24

    C'mon Larry, it ain't a plea for "help".

    It's pure, unprincipled, without a sliver of self pride and shame begging.

    Beg for gas
    Beg for coal
    Beg for weapons
    Beg for money
    Beg for EU membership
    Beg for money again
    Beg for cookies
    Beg for a football tournament to be cancelled
    Beg for men to be sent to die in the East

    After they stupidly get the real war and invasion they have been moaning for, watch them *beg for mercy.

    *Shout out to G-Unit for those that know ;-)

    Watch them in the next couple of weeks beg Russia to not call in that 5 Billion loan repayment that is due.

    2015 is going to be one helluva year.....

    brianboru1014 24 Mar 2015 14:58

    Ukraine is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbor she said with a straight face.
    She says the country had 70 years of Communism, which it had, and 23 years of incomplete reforms.

    She should have said 23 years of thievery because the people of Ukraine didn't see too much benefit. Twenty three years of neo liberalism. That's a very hard sell.

    [Mar 25, 2015] Congress Demands War in Ukraine! by Daniel McAdams

    March 23, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Just weeks after a European-brokered ceasefire greatly reduced the violence in Ukraine, the US House of Representatives today takes a big step toward re-igniting -- and expanding -- the bloody civil war.

    A Resolution, "Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," stealthily made its way to the House Floor today without having been debated in the relevant House Committees and without even being given a bill number before appearing on the Floor!

    Now titled H. Res. 162, the bill demands that President Obama send lethal military equipment to the US-backed government in Kiev and makes it clear that the weapons are to be used to take military action to return Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Kiev's rule.

    Congress wants a war in Ukraine and will not settle for a ceasefire!

    The real world effect of this Resolution must be made clear: The US Congress is giving Kiev the green light to begin a war with Russia, with the implicit guarantee of US backing. This is moral hazard on steroids and could well spark World War III.

    The Resolution conveniently ignores that the current crisis in Ukraine was ignited by the US-backed coup which overthrew the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. The secession of Crimea and eastern Ukraine were a reaction to the illegal coup engineered by US officials such as Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt. Congress instead acts as if one morning the Russians woke up and decided to invade Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

    There is no mention at all of US backing for the coup -- or even that a coup took place!

    Indeed, a read of the Resolution shows it is revisionism par excellence:

    Whereas the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin has engaged in relentless political, economic, and military aggression to subvert the independence and violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine;
    ...

    Whereas Russian aggression against Ukraine is but the most visible and recent manifestation of a revisionist Kremlin strategy to redraw international borders and impose its will on its neighbors, including NATO allies;

    Shamefully, the resolution pins the blame for the thousands killed by Kiev's shelling of civilian centers in eastern Ukraine on Russia:
    Whereas this Russian aggression includes the establishment and control of violent separatist proxies in other areas of Ukraine, including arming them with lethal weapons and other materiel including tanks, artillery, and rockets that have enabled separatist militias to launch and sustain an insurrection that has resulted in over 6,000 dead, 15,000 wounded, and more than a million displaced persons;
    The Resolution goes even further, explicitly calling for the US to support regime change in Russia itself:
    Whereas the United States and its allies need a long-term strategy to expose and challenge Vladimir Putin's corruption and repression at home and his aggression abroad;
    "Expose and challenge" the elected Russian president at home.

    During the Floor debate on the Resolution, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) even compared Russian "action" in Ukraine to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, demanding that this time the "Hitler" must be stopped before he goes further!

    Not a single Member of Congress took the Floor to oppose this dangerous Resolution.

    Passage of this Resolution should make it clear that the political leadership of the US will accept nothing short of war with Russia.

    Update: The Resolution passed in the House, 348-48.


    Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

    [Mar 25, 2015] Israel Denies WSJ Report It Spies on US-Iran Talks by Jason Ditz,

    March 24, 2015 | Antiwar.com

    Israeli officials are desperately trying to deny the latest reports out of the Wall Street Journal that they conducted a spying campaign against US officials involved in the Iran negotiations with an eye toward feeding that information to US Congressmen to sour the talks.

    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the reports "utterly false," insisting Israel would never spy on the United States under any circumstance. Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon insisted the report was part of a plot to try to harm US-Israeli ties.

    House Speaker John Boehner (R – OH) insisted he was "shocked and baffled" by the report, and denied that he had been given any intelligence by the Israelis on the talks.

    Sen. Bob Corker (R – TN) also denied any talks, and complained he felt "left out." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R – SC), by contrast, only denied any specific "briefings," but suggested he was given intelligence by Israeli officials, saying only that it was things he'd already known about.

    In the past month, Israel has been repeatedly reported to be trying to sabotage the Iran talks with selective funneling of intelligence to Congress. The Obama Administration was said to have limited briefing access to Israelis over fear anything they told Israel would get leaked to Congress and spun in as negative a light as possible.

    [Mar 25, 2015] Espionage, Treason, and the Congressional Fifth Column by Justin Raimondo

    Justin Raimondo on Israel occupied territory in DC Congress canoodles with Israeli spies to undermine Iran deal
    March 25, 2015 | Antiwar.com

    The spectacle of virtually the entire Senate GOP caucus mobilizing in support of a foreign power in order to drag us into war with Iran has certainly been instructive. Not since the Federalist party plotted with the British during the War of 1812 has an American fifth column been so open about their treason.

    But isn't the "t"-word a bit hyperbolic? After all, don't all Americans, even the worst warmongers among us, have the right to free speech? Those members of Congress were merely expressing their opinion – right?

    Not so fast:

    "Soon after the U.S. and other major powers entered negotiations last year to curtail Iran's nuclear program, senior White House officials learned Israel was spying on the closed-door talks.

    "The spying operation was part of a broader campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to penetrate the negotiations and then help build a case against the emerging terms of the deal, current and former U.S. officials said. In addition to eavesdropping, Israel acquired information from confidential U.S. briefings, informants and diplomatic contacts in Europe, the officials said.

    "The espionage didn't upset the White House as much as Israel's sharing of inside information with U.S. lawmakers and others to drain support from a high-stakes deal intended to limit Iran's nuclear program, current and former officials said."

    To be clear: the Israelis penetrated our communications, and used other means – including "informants" presumably inside the U.S. government – to uncover details about the emerging deal with Iran, and then passed this information on, perhaps indirectly, to their congressional fifth column, including presidential aspirants Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul, all of whom then signed on to Sen. Tom Cotton's "open letter" to Tehran.

    If this isn't treason, then the word has no meaning.

    Speaker of the House John Boehner, who plotted with Israeli ambassador Ron Dermer behind the President's back to invite Netanyahu to address Congress, said he was "shocked" and "baffled" by the news. Not by the news they spied on us – it's well known that the Jewish state is among the most aggressive foreign adversaries our counterintelligence agencies have to fend off – but "by the fact that there were reports in this press article that information was being passed on from the Israelis to members of Congress. I'm not aware of that at all." What's baffling, however, is Boehner's behavior during this Israeli incursion onto American territory: why did he suddenly decide to go full wingnut and canoodle with the Israelis to bring Bibi to American shores? And how is it the Speaker has so little knowledge of what's going on right under his nose on Capitol Hill?

    "The White House discovered the operation," reports Adam Entous of the Wall Street Journal, "when U.S. intelligence agencies spying on Israel intercepted communications among Israeli officials that carried details the U.S. believed could have come only from access to the confidential talks, officials briefed on the matter said." Those telling details then somehow found their way into conversations between the Israelis (and their American agents) and "U.S. lawmakers and others," accord to the Journal.

    It's one thing to spy, said a top U.S. official, but "it's another thing to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy."

    Given the extensive surveillance capabilities of our government, one assumes they have concrete evidence of such "play back." And surely the Israelis knew this, and yet didn't hesitate to engage in such brazen behavior. One can only conclude they wanted to get caught.

    This is the Israeli style: flagrant flouting of diplomatic conventions and norms in order to display their prowess – and their utter contempt for their adversaries, in this case the Obama administration. And not only the Obama administration: for surely the Israelis knew their congressional enablers would be left hanging, at a loss to explain how such information came into their possession. One can almost hear them laughing in Tel Aviv: "Those stupid Americans, how they grovel before us – even as we kick them in the teeth!"

    Relentless Israeli espionage in order to manipulate U.S. policy toward Iran is hardly new. The case of Larry Franklin, formerly a high ranking Pentagon Iran analyst, who handed over top secret information to two employees of AIPAC – who then transmitted it to their Israeli handlers – underscores the lengths Tel Aviv will go to in order to push us into war with Tehran.

    The two AIPAC officials – longtime AIPAC lobbyist Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, a foreign policy analyst for the powerful pro-Israel group – were interested in procuring internal U.S. government documents detailing Washington's evolving stance toward Tehran. At the time there was a vigorous internal debate about whether to launch a preemptive strike against Iran, and the Israelis wanted the inside dope.

    U.S. counterintelligence caught Franklin – a dyed-in-the-wool neocon, who had committed treason for purely ideological motives – red-handed, and confronted him. Faced with a long jail sentence, he agreed to be wired, and the FBI caught Rosen and Weissman on tape, openly celebrating their success in securing vital U.S. secrets on Israel's behalf. Franklin was sentenced to 12 years in prison, but was given time off for cooperating with investigators: Rosen and Weissman fought the charges, and were lionized by the neocon media as "martyrs" to "free speech" (!). The only reason they didn't wind up in the slammer was because they threatened to reveal in court the very secrets they had handed over to Israel: in the face of this blackmail, the government declined to pursue the case – although the charges were never dropped. Rosen slunk off to work for some neocon outfit, and the whole thing was forgotten. Perhaps it's time to recall it.

    Speaking of AIPAC and the FBI: federal agents have raided AIPAC's Washington headquarters on no less than two occasions, looking for evidence of the same sort of collusion with Israeli spy agencies that our congressional solons have apparently engaged in. On December 1, 2004, FBI agents seized the hard drives of Rosen and Weissman at AIPAC's offices, and, as Richard Sale of UPI reported at the time:

    "The FBI also served subpoenas on AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Communications Director Renee Rothstein, and Research Director Raphael Danziger.

    "All are suspected of having acted as 'cut outs' or intermediaries who passed highly sensitive U.S. data from high-level Pentagon and administration officials to Israel, said one former federal law enforcement official."

    Franklin was nabbed when the FBI videotaped him in conversation with Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at Israel's embassy in Washington, D.C. The feds were observing Gilon as part of a larger investigation into an extensive Israeli spying operation inside the U.S. government. As Sale reported:

    "In 2001, the FBI discovered new, 'massive' Israeli spying operations in the East Coast, including New York and New Jersey, said one former senior U.S. government official. The FBI began intensive surveillance on certain Israeli diplomats and other suspects and was videotaping Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, who was having lunch at a Washington hotel with two lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby group. Federal law enforcement officials said they were floored when Franklin came up to their table and sat down."

    U.S. counterintelligence agencies were hot on the trail of a much larger Israeli spying operation, of which the Franklin-Rosen-Weissman team was just the tip of the iceberg. Those "high-level Pentagon and administration officials" who were passing U.S. secrets to Israel were never caught, or at least they were never prosecuted. They are presumably still at large – and perhaps still embedded in the high councils of state.

    Whenever Israel's aggressive spying in the U.S. is uncovered the usual excuse is that countries spy on each other all the time, and this practice is "routine" even among allies. Yet this is nonsense, and especially so in the case of Israel's covert activities in this country. The very real consequences of Israeli espionage on our soil are being felt today, in the present debate over the not-yet-signed U.S. deal with Iran.

    This story goes back to the earlier part of this decade. The U.S. had cracked the Iranian inter-agency code, which gave Washington a vital window into the internal workings of the Tehran regime. Suddenly, however, all went dark. What had happened? The fact that we cracked their code had somehow been leaked to Tehran and the Iranians immediately changed their communications protocols: U.S. intelligence was blinded as to what was going on inside Iran.

    So who was the leaker? Ahmed Chalabi, a neocon favorite with considerable support inside the Bush administration – who, it turned out, had been an Iranian agent all along – was the prime suspect. When Franklin was questioned about this he stopped cooperating with the FBI and secured a prominent lawyer, Plato Chacheris. This led to the raids on AIPAC.

    When the Obama administration came into office the case against the AIPAC defendants was summarily dropped, much to the chagrin of U.S. counterintelligence agencies. These days I'm willing to bet administration officials are quite sorry they let those Israeli big fish – and their American minnows – off the hook.

    So Boehner is "baffled," is he? Perhaps an interview with a couple of U.S. law enforcement officers – preferably conducted under hot lights, with him in a straight-backed chair – would succeed in un-baffling him. I seem to recall a number of people, among them prominent reporters such as Glenn Greenwald, who have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for passing classified intelligence along – or receiving it – without authorization. I wonder how many of those Senators who signed the Cotton letter were privy to classified information given to them courtesy of Israeli "briefers," and who then paraded around Washington braying about what a "bad deal" the administration was preparing to sign.

    Do these esteemed solons think they're above the law? Clearly they do. One longs for the day when they realize they aren't – on the wrong side of a set of prison bars.

    NOTES IN THE MARGIN

    You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

    I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and ISI Books, 2008).

    You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

    Read more by Justin Raimondo

    [Mar 24, 2015] Are NGOs Agents of Subversion by Patrick J. Buchanan

    March 24, 2015 | Antiwar.com

    Though "Bibi" Netanyahu won re-election last week, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will still look into whether the State Department financed a clandestine effort to defeat him.

    Reportedly, State funneled $350,000 to an American NGO called OneVoice, which has an Israeli subsidiary, Victory 15, that collaborated with U.S. operatives to bring Bibi down.

    If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tactics against democracies.

    After World War II, my late colleague on CNN's "Crossfire," Tom Braden, delivered CIA cash to democratic parties in Europe imperiled by communist parties financed from Moscow.

    But that was done to combat Stalinism when Western survival was at stake in a Cold War that ended in 1991.

    Hopefully, after looking into OneVoice and V15, the Senate will expand its investigation into a larger question: Is the U.S. using NGOs to subvert regimes around the world? And, if so, who decides which regimes may be subverted?

    What gives these questions urgency is the current crisis that has Moscow moving missiles toward Europe and sending submarines and bombers to probe NATO defenses.

    America contends that Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and backing for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine is the cause of the gathering storm in Russian-NATO relations.

    Yet Putin's actions in Ukraine were not taken until the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev, in a coup d'etat in which, Moscow contends, an American hand was clearly visible.

    Not only was John McCain in Kiev's Maidan Square egging on the crowds that drove the regime from power, so, too, was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

    In an intercepted phone call with our ambassador in Kiev, Nuland identified the man we preferred when President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. "Yats," she called him. And when Yanukovych fled after the Maidan massacre, sure enough, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was in power.

    Nuland also revealed that the U.S. had spent $5 billion since 1991 to bring about the reorientation of Ukraine toward the West.

    Now, bringing Ukraine into the EU and NATO may appear to Nuland & Co. a great leap forward for freedom and progress.

    But to Russia it looks like the subversion of a Slavic nation with which she has had intimate ties for centuries, to bring Ukraine into an economic union and military alliance directed against Moscow.

    And if NATO stumbles into a military clash with Russia, the roots of that conflict will be traceable to the coup in Kiev that Russians believe was the dirty work of the Americans.

    If the U.S. had a role in that coup, the American people should know it and the Senate should find out whether Nuland & Co. used NGOs to reignite a Cold War that Ronald Reagan brought to an end.

    And if we are now using NGOs as fronts for secret operations to dump over regimes, we are putting all NGOs abroad under suspicion and at risk.

    Not in our lifetimes has America been more distrusted and disliked. And among the reasons is that we are seen as constantly carping at governments that do not measure up to our standards of democracy, and endlessly interfering in the internal affairs of nations that do not threaten us.

    In this new era, U.S. foreign policy elites have boasted of the "color-coded" revolutions they helped to foment in Belgrade, Kiev, Tbilisi. In 2003, we helped to overthrow the Georgian regime of Eduard Shevardnadze in a "Rose Revolution" that brought to power Mikheil Saakashvili. And Saakashvili nearly dragged us into a confrontation with Russia in 2008, when he invaded South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.

    What vital interest of ours was there in that little nation in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin, to justify so great a risk?

    Nor is it Moscow alone that is angered over U.S. interference in its internal affairs and those of its neighbor nations.

    President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has expelled members of U.S. NGOs. Beijing believes U.S. NGOs were behind the Occupy-Wall-Street-style street blockages in Hong Kong.

    If true, these U.S. actions raise a fundamental question:

    What is the preeminent goal of U.S. foreign policy?

    Is it to protect the vital interests and national security of the Republic? Or do we believe with George W. Bush that, "The survival of liberty" in America "depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

    If it is the latter, then our mission is utopian – and unending.

    For if we believe our liberty is insecure until the whole world is democratic, then we cannot rest until we witness the overthrow of the existing regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Belarus, most of the Arab and African nations, as well as Venezuela and Cuba.

    And if that is our goal, our Republic will die trying to achieve it.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

    [Mar 24, 2015] Russia Under Attack by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    Mar 24, 2015 | CounterPunch

    The Return of Dr. Strangelove

    While Washington works assiduously to undermine the Minsk agreement that German chancellor Merkel and French president Hollande achieved in order to halt the military conflict in Ukraine, Washington has sent Victoria Nuland to Armenia to organize a "color revolution" or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government's allegiance away from Russia. The result would be to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization and present Russia and China with destabilization where they can least afford it. For details go here.

    Thus, Russia faces the renewal of conflict in Ukraine simultaneously with three more Ukraine-type situations along its Asian border.

    And this is only the beginning of the pressure that Washington is mounting on Russia.

    On March 18 the Secretary General of NATO denounced the peace settlement between Russia and Georgia that ended Georgia's military assault on South Ossetia. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO rejects the settlement because it "hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region."

    Look closely at this statement. It defines the "international community" as Washington's NATO puppet states, and it defines strengthening security and stability as removing buffers between Russia and Georgia so that Washington can position military bases in Georgia directly on Russia's border.

    In Poland and the Baltic states Washington and NATO lies about a pending Russian invasion are being used to justify provocative war games on Russia's borders and to build up US forces in NATO military bases on Russia's borders.

    We have crazed US generals on national television calling for "killing Russians."

    The EU leadership has agreed to launch a propaganda war against Russia, broadcasting Washington's lies inside Russia in an effort to undermine the Russian people's support of their government.

    All of this is being done in order to coerce Russia into handing over Crimea and its Black Sea naval base to Washington and accepting vassalage under Washington's suzerainty.

    If Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, and the Taliban would not fold to Washington's threats, why do the fools in Washington think Putin, who holds in his hands the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, will fold?

    European governments, apparently, are incapable of any thought. Washington has set London and the capitals of every European country, as well as every American city, for destruction by Russian nuclear weapons. The stupid Europeans rush to destroy themselves in service to their Washington master.

    Human intelligence has gone missing if after 14 years of US military aggression against eight countries the world does not understand that Washington is lost in arrogance and hubris and imagines itself the ruler of the universe who will tolerate no dissent from its will.

    We know that the American, British, and European media are whores well paid to lie for their master. We know that the NATO commander and secretary general, if not the member countries, are lusting for war. We know that the American Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon and armaments industry cannot wait to test their ABMs and new weapons systems in which they always place excessive confidence. We know that the prime minister of Britain is a total cipher. But are the chancellor of Germany and the president of France ready for the destruction of their countries and of Europe? If the EU is of such value, why is the very existence of its populations put at risk in order to bow down and accept leadership from an insane Washington whose megalomania will destroy life on earth?

    Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

    [Mar 24, 2015] The MSM ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing

    Mar 22, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.6com

    Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 9:35 am

    This strikes me as very good big picture analysis:

    "So there are two ways by which the current stand-off will play out.

    • The first one, and arguably the less likely one, is that Russia backs down and ultimately, under continued economic pressure, agrees to privatize its national monopolies or even sell them directly to Western firms, and thus become a sort of Saudi Arabia of the North.
    • The second one is that Russia fends off this latest Western encroachment, forcing the West to re-examine the structure of its post-Cold War political economy. With economic expansion no longer on the table, the West will have a choice of rediscovering the benefits of redistributive policies, or embark on exclusionary policies that would have to be backed by a police state."

    http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html

    cartman, March 22, 2015 at 10:17 am

    If the MSM will ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing, then Western governments will take what they have learned from the junta and apply them to their own societies.

    Fern, March 23, 2015 at 6:23 am

    Tim, thanks for posting the 'fortruss' article by J Hawk – a very good analysis. FWIW, my own thoughts are that it is absolutely essential for the EU and the West generally that Crimea does not prosper. i would go so far as to say that, to a large extent, the future of the neo-liberal economic order depends on Crimea becoming an economic disaster zone. For what has happened as a result of its reunification with Russia, almost an accidental bi-product, you might say, is that the world and its wife has the opportunity to watch two different development models in action, literally side by side. In Ukraine, there's the IMF 'austerity' model – privatisation, asset stripping, foreign ownership of key parts of the economy, cutting back the role of the state to the bare minimum, poverty for much of the population etc. In Crimea's there's a different model, one that sees a role for the state as well as private enterprise – much like the mixed economies of the west in the 1970's before the neo-liberals grabbed control – and where's there's genuine job-creating, value-adding investment in infrastructure planned and already happening.

    If Crimea delivers a much higher standard of living for its people than is achieved in Ukraine, then what price neo-liberalism, what lessons might Greece, Spain, Portugal etc learn? Crimea cannot be allowed to succeed, the threat of a good example is too dangerous.

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 7:49 am

    An excellent point, Fern, and that might make a good subject for a post in the not-too-distant future.

    Oddlots, March 23, 2015 at 9:10 am

    I think you are dead right. The stakes could barely be higher.

    It's funny, Russian politics kind of reminds me of Canada in the 70s under Trudeau. Before the southern strategy and the radical "government is the problem, not the solution" ideology of Reagan, Thatcher etc. it was still possible in the west to voice a common purpose that roughly mapped onto government initiative. After 30 years of this pro-oligarchy drivel we can barely conceive of a common purpose. The parasite has taken over the host's mind.

    et Al, March 23, 2015 at 9:45 am

    I would quibble with this:

    However, while Globalization was marketed as a win-win proposition for both the global North and South, in reality the developing states have gotten the losing side of the bargain.

    The smaller southern states have been picked off but are fighting back, as we see in Ecuador, Venezuela, Boliva. The 'Developing World' successfully stopped the Doha round of globalization talks because the North wanted full liberalization of their markets at drop of a hat so that they can waltz in and buy anything worthwhile.

    Brazil has refused this, India has (for example its textile and other industries) and Africa was mostly ignored because the North is racist and thinks they have nothing to offer except South Africa and a few northern bits (which is blatantly wrong as China has been the trailblazing investor in Africa with serious money, development and actually building roads, hospitals and infrastructure – followed eventually by Japan, India & the US).

    I think that maybe the North's dismissing of Africa may well be part of its undoing.

    As for the rest of it, I can agree, but I am weary of being presented with such a limited number of outcomes.

    rymlianin, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 am

    Noam Chomsky agrees . Free markets are for the third world, so that 1st world countries can easily get rid of their excess products.

    yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 10:28 am

    Here we go again! At first I thought this item was from a few days ago, but it's from today. Then I thought it was GroundHog Day!

    Because Kolomoisky has done it again, and his guys (maybe not him personally) have invaded a different oil company, this time UkrNafta (not to be confused with UrkTransNafta, which is a different company). Benny's guys have barricaded themselves inside the company HQ, at Nesterovsky Street in Kiev.

    A spokesperson says this siege is a continuation of the story (explained by Jen, in comment above) whereby the rules were changed for what constitutes a quorum among shareholders.

    The Ukrainian government owns (50% + 1) share of UkrNafta. Now, just like the previous case, the government wants to put in its own management, while expelling Benny's henchmen from the big boardroom.

    The article states that Benny must not have listened to Pyatt's warnings.

    [yalensis: I mentioned in comment, above, that Benny is a proud and stubborn man, who listens to nobody.]

    james, March 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    thanks for these kolowonky updates… what i find fascinating is a guy being allowed to have a goon squad and parading around ukraine with the goon squad doing these kinds of acts.. what would happen if he had some competition and goon squads started to lock themselves into privatbank locations?

    how do ordinary citizens of ukraine view this guy? there are no parallels in western societies that i am aware of!

    james, March 23, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    article today suggests that my question from earlier is being answered here – http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/kolomoisky-vs-poroshenko-kiev-junta.html

    2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".

    3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:

    "Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).

    see the article for more..

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    He is setting himself up for a mini civil war in Kiev if he thinks to order Benny to disperse his private army now, because they are loyal to their employer – Benny, who pays them directly, when they know all too clearly they are not going to be allowed to have this much fun roughing up and killing people ever again while getting paid for it – and the time to do it was the second it became known Benny was doing it, because the constitution forbids it and Porky always knew that.

    He let him get away with it because it was useful, and there is no use in his attempting to stand on the law now: funny how when you trample on the law every day and only obey what suits you, how difficult it is to get back to the world of law when you need to. And what else does Porky have but the moral high ground he is attempting to claim? Would the Ukie army obey him if he ordered them to wipe out Benny and his boys? Glad it's not my decision. If you run for it now, Porky, you might avoid being turned into bacon. Yes, I said it. Bacon.

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am

    Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on? Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:29 am

    VZGLIAD is taking online poll as people place their bets on their cock-fight.

    Results so far (of 11609 people voting):
    64.6% think Benny will win the fight
    15.7% think Porky will win.
    19.7% say it will end in draw

    I explained my reasons in above comment, I placed my bets on Porky, and I went ALL IN!
    (or "va bank" as the Russians say!)

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 3:03 am

    The Germans also use the expression "Va banque" – sometimes spelt "Vabanque".

    A well known usage of this term allegedly took place during a conversation between Hermann Göring und Adolf Hitler on their hearing of the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3rd, something which they had not expected to happen as a result of the German invasion of Poland two days earlier and had therefore considered that invasion a risk worth taking.

    Apparently, Göring said to Hitler:

    "Wir wollen doch das Vabanque-Spiel lassen", worauf Hitler antwortete: „Ich habe in meinem Leben immer Vabanque gespielt.

    "We should go for broke", whereupon Hitler answered: "I have my whole life always gone for broke".

    It means to play against the bank, to lay all your stakes against what the bank has; if you win, you win big time: if you lose, you lose everything.

    The vulgar expression where I come from is "shit or bust".

    So rephrasing Hermann and Adolf's little exchange above:

    – Well, it looks like it's shit or bust.

    – All my life it's been shit or bust with me.

    Only thing is, Adolf didn't use dirty language.

    And he liked dogs as well.

    And he was a veggie.

    yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Roman Bochkala, Ukrainian journalist and patriot.

    1. Four months ago: We must not surrender the airport to the Separatists!"
    2. Two days ago: Ukraine has plunged into poverty .
    TRANSLATION (of piece done by Bochkala on Ukrainian TV)

    The (Ukrainian) people are suffering real poverty. Here is just one sad example:
    Yesterday I happened to be in Zaporozhie. We popped into a deli. Ahead of me in the queue was a young girl and an old woman. And some very basic products on the belt. The girl was purchasing yogurt, some hot dogs, margarine, and eggs. All this came to around 70 or so.
    When she was ready to pay, she studied the receipt, and discovered that the real price was higher than what was marked (on the products). "What you have on the price tags is lower than this," she told the check-out clerk. She said this matter-of-factly, not like she was disputing the price, just complaining about it.

    "We didn't have time to change the price tags. Sorry," the young clerk apologized. I concluded that the young girl had calculated in her head how much she would pay, when selecting her products. In other words, for her this was a serious sum. She doesn't have the option of just buying yogurt, without factoring in the price. Then my attention was turned to the sound of coins clanking.

    The old woman was pouring out of a cellophane (baggie) a small heap of coins, of varying denominations. "That's all I have," she said. "I don't have any more money." The old woman was neatly dressed, but looked hopeless.

    The clerk methodically moved the coins from one heap to another (while counting them). "You need 27.5 but you only have 25," he concluded, counting the money again. It became an issue (for her): what should she put back, the bread, or the flour?

    I took out 200 hryvnas and gave it to the woman. She looked at me, with the look of a dog who has been many times abused and deceived.

    Then she burst out crying.

    And such people are ever more numerous in Ukraine.

    marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:39 am

    I don't have the words to tell you how sad that is to me.

    kirill, March 23, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    Not a single squeak about this theme in the whole western media.

    Quite the propaganda chorus the western media is.

    Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Igor Mosiychuk heads a meeting in mourning for and dedicated to the victims of the Holodomor.

    kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:31 am

    I should take this opportunity to point out, once again, that the western Ukraine did not live through Holodmor. All of western Ukraine not just some part of it. But the Donbas did live through Stalin's forced collectivization famines.

    So we have the Nazi allied Bandera vermin using the deaths of people in the Donbas as a pretext to kill people in the Donbas. Sick.

    But they have the following logic: Before the Holodomor the Donbas was populated by virgin ethnic Ukrs. The residents of the Donbas after the famine are all Russian squatters. My relatives believe this SHIT. I need to stop treating them as my relatives.

    Some facts about the Donbas:

    1. There are many Ukrainians living there, which is inconsistent with the genocide claim. Genocides totally remove demographic traces. You can see this in western Ukraine where there are no longer Poles and Jews in regions they previously populated in large numbers.
    2. There are Serbs and Greeks still living in eastern Ukraine. Did Stalin settle them there?
    3. We should ask the current residents of the Donbas who tend to graves going back into the 1800s what they think about the Banderite claims.

    kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:43 am

    Ignore this BS map in the east. Novorossia was not part of Ukraine until the Soviets.

    marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:42 am

    I don't suppose he sees any irony at all in commemorating an event in which people starved to death when he himself displaces roughly as much water as a Buick Skylark.

    kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:47 am

    To be fair, he likely has a thyroid disorder and insulin resistence. Obesity is not simply due to stuffing your face and it is a fact that thin people can consume more calories than obese people.

    This applies to the insulin resistant who instead of turning glucose into heat (as "normal" people do) turn it into fat. Calorie restriction for insulin resistant metabolism types is guaranteed to fail.

    They need high fat, low carbohydrate type diets.

    Jen, March 22, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    Symptoms of iodine deficiency include obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes. They go together in a vicious circle and teasing out which causes which almost amounts to time-wasting Titanic deckchair rearrangements.

    Max, March 22, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Not so fast…

    https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/more-on-the-fake-holodomor/

    The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it?

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Seven million people? Peanuts!

    More like TWO HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE! Killed by commies, yeh!

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    Interesting footnote, which I saw in above wiki piece. (To be specific: footnote #12 – the word "Crimea" caught my eye").

    Here is link to footnote:

    So, one year after George W. Bush dedicated the monument, designed to exasperate the Chinese government, then the first anniversary of this exercise in extreme hypocrisy, was held in Crimea, with Tatars playing the role of "victims du jour".

    The event organizers had selected Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as the background music. This well-known symphony is regarded a symbol of both the beginning and the end of Communism in Eastern Europe. In 1918, the top Communist leaders, including Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, participated in the first anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution by attending a performance at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. Seventy-one years later, shortly after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the American composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein conducted the Ninth Symphony on Christmas Day in West Berlin.

    It was very touching to see more than 20 wreaths lined up in the grassy area adjacent to the Memorial site waiting to be presented at the ceremony. They were in alphabetical order, starting with Afghanistan and ending with Ukraine. (……)

    The Crimean Tatar wreath was presented in the name of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis (Assembly), Simferopol, by the International Committee for Crimea (ICC), Washington, DC. The inscription on one of the ribbons read: "Honoring the memory of more than 200,000 victims of famine, deportation and political repression." I had the honor of presenting the Crimean Tatar wreath in person. We are grateful to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for providing a platform where we can link to other people of different national, ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who were victimized by Communist authorities. Together we can support the Foundation and work toward the common goal of educating the public about Communism's crimes against humanity.

    Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose!

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    P.P.S. – one link leads to another . ICC still exists, and still sobbing about violated Tatars rights. Meanwhile, in reality Tatars have more rights now, in Russian Crimea, than they ever had in Ukie Crimea.

    ICC logo appears to be a Ukie trident flipped upside down and ready to sink into the Black Sea…

    Maybe like a sinking boat?

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    http://www.iccrimea.org/

    colliemum, March 23, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    It's how things work: once a group of people has become a designated 'victim group', they can do no wrong in the eyes of the MSM and of course their supporters in the West. It doesn't matter if these designated 'victim groups' are in foreign countries or actually living on the soil of a Western country.

    I have no idea how the process of selecting a 'victim group' works. For example, in the UK Pakistani and Bangladeshi muslims are 'victims' – Kurds, who've been persecuted by various Turkish regimes, are not. And it's not about skin colour either, because neither Sikhs nor Hindus are 'victim groups' …

    I think someone ought to do a bit of research into this!

    (Not me – I'm pounding the pavements and doing other electioneering, until May 7th)

    Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:57 am

    Referring back to the previous posting concerning Psaki's replacement, Rathke, and Harfe and how Matt Lee tackles these double-talking spokespersons for the State Department:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfEIXy64HL0

    Warren, March 22, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    Published on 22 Mar 2015

    MORE DOCUMENTARIES HERE: http://www.youtube.com/RTDocumentaries/

    Miguel Francis, a Los Angeles film school graduate, travels to Crimea to discover how life there has changed since it was reunited with Russia. He explores the beautiful peninsula's history and cultural heritage, as well as taking in some of Crimea's tourist attractions while talking to locals about their attitudes to becoming Russian citizens.

    Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    Did he graduate?

    Jen, March 22, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    Miguel Francis Santiago also made a documentary on Donetsk and the Donetsk rebels. From memory, I think he visited the airport with the rebels and talks to Givi.
    http://rtd.rt.com/films/donetsk-an-american-glance/

    davidt, March 22, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    For a change of pace and emphasis, the American University in Moscow website has a nice, and interesting, interview with Charles Bausman, of Russia Insider fame.
    http://us-russia.org/3032-orthodox-american-crowdfunds-a-major-volunteer-media-watchdog-site.html

    I think it's worth reading.

    Warren, March 22, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    With that announcement on #Syria the #UK breaks international law OFFICIALLY & should shut up about #Russia forever. pic.twitter.com/j6oufVHQC0

    - Jason Han (@hanjixin) March 23, 2015

    Warren, March 22, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    EXCLUSIVE: Detained by #SBU, beaten by #RightSector – Story of French businessman in #Ukraine http://t.co/49YFrNd6M5 pic.twitter.com/bNx0Ct5INf

    - Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) March 21, 2015

    Pavlo Svolochenko, March 22, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    http://ria.ru/world/20150322/1053911387.html

    Benny admits DNR and LNR defacto authorities in Donbass.

    http://www.politnavigator.net/nachinaetsya-kolomojjskijj-potreboval-finansovojj-federalizacii.html

    Benny wants 90% of regions' tax take to stay with regional authorities.

    So much for the champion of edina Ukraina.

    kat kan, March 23, 2015 at 12:07 am

    He'd love them to stay separate. With 90% of taxes? he has a racket worked out already for taking it off them. Whereas they're of a bent to nationalise things they believe were illegally obtained.

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:07 am

    American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine fires its president , most probably for his "pro-Russian" views.

    Namely, Bernard Casey was outspoken in his views against Maidan as a violent coup, and felt that Crimea should return to Russia.

    KievPost "exposed" Casey; after their expose, he was toast, and then he got fired from his job.

    Casey apparently hails from San Jose California [yalensis: I have been there, it's actually a lovely place, the local inhabitants keep their property in perfect shape, almost obsessively landscaping their yards], anyhow Casey's expertise is small business and start-up companies.

    Nothing in Casey's bio that suggests that he is a rebel, or even anything "ethnic" going on there…

    Maybe he is simply an honorable man who tells the truth as he sees it, and pays the consequences for that?

    kirill, March 23, 2015 at 5:47 am

    He is definitely a heretic. NATO is even going to establish rapid internet reaction forces to stop the spread of Russian false narratives. We are back in the era of the crusades.

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 8:05 am

    Because everyone knows the people are too stupid and unwordly to know for themselves that they are being fed bullshit. In fact, NATO's successful transmission of its own narrative depends on it.

    james, March 23, 2015 at 8:46 am

    thanks yalensis.. the kiev post is an interesting american publication, or at least that is what it looks like to me! reading the article on caseys views which were also published in the kiev post confirms the fact he was looking for objectivity in an atmosphere which was opposed to it..i am surprised the kiev post let his thoughts be known!

    http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/chamber-disavows-ex-presidents-remarks-supporting-russias-annexation-of-crimea-384197.html

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    KievPost has the WORST commenters, bunch of low-IQ, prejudiced Banderite diaspora trash.

    Like this one, for example:

    A commenter called "OlenaG" makes gratuitous attack not only against Mr. Casey but entire San Jose State University, which is actually a component of the California State University system (which is highly respected educational system, even internationally):

    "He received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering at the San Jose State University and an MBA degree at Santa Clara University."

    Anyone that knows the reputation of San Jose State as a "Party College" (rated by U.S. News and World Report in its annual College ratings) and knows the Political Correctness of Santa Clara County both in California and in South San Francisco Bay would know to not have hired Casey.

    (….)

    Talk about ad hominem attacks! This idiot has no proof whatsoever that Mr. Casey spent his time partying instead of studying electrical engineering; and moreover, the very fact that Mr. Casey joined the Chamber of Commerce probably indicates that he was NOT politically correct at all!

    Pavlo Svolochenko, March 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    The worst American university would still compare favourably with the best Ukrainian one, I suspect.

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 3:34 am

    Well, Ukraine USED to have good universities, especially in Soviet times.
    Now, I am not so sure…

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:24 am

    More on Kolomoisky's antics.

    Linked piece is entitled: "Kolomoisky goes va-banque", which is a Russian phrase (actually French), meaning, as Americans would say, in a poker game, "all in".

    In other words, Benny continues to occupy the UkrNafta company offices in Kiev.
    (Not to be confused with the other oil company, UkrTransNafta, which Benny had to cede.)

    To beef up the ranks of his goons, Benny sent his personal battalion "Dnepr-1″. Leaving the war zone of the "Anti-Terrorist Operation", this battalion arrived back in Kiev to seize UkrNafta.

    Benny has explained that his military operation against UkrNafta is necessary to thwart the "raider" attempt by his (Benny's) arch-enemy, Igor Eremeev. Eremeev is a fellow oligarch and also a member of Ukrainian Parliament.

    This exciting event is all happening on Monday, March 23.

    There was a confrontation when one of Porky's allies, the deputy named Mustafu Nayem, attempted to enter the building. Benny's goons would not allow Mustafu inside. Ukrainskaya Pravda reported that Mustafu was beaten up. (see the video)
    Mustafu elucidated on his Facebook that he was roughed up, but not badly beaten.
    According to the description of the video (which I have not had time to watch), Mustafu asked Benny: "What are you doing here, Igor Valeryevich?"
    To which Benny replied: "I came to see a Parliamentary Deputy. And who are you, a journalist or a deputy?"

    Mustafu replied that within 2 months, UkrNafta will be a nationalized company belonging to the state.

    Benny shot back, that this will not happen, because UkrNafta is a private company, and that he himself (=Benny) owns 42% of it.

    And on and on… lots more… but the thrust of the article is that things are getting serious now.

    james, March 23, 2015 at 8:58 am

    yalensis, i am confused by these actions. in most countries where the rule of law supposedly operates, the police would come and evict these squatters… why isn't this happening here? or is this the type of system they have where oligarchs goon squads can do whatever their goon demands they do without any legal ramifications?

    james, March 23, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".

    3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:

    "Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).
    http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/kolomoisky-vs-poroshenko-kiev-junta.html

    Jen, March 23, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    Kolomoisky funds at least five paramilitary battalions including Aidar, Azov, Dnepr-1, Dnepr-2 and Donbass which are part of the National Guard.

    A good proportion of his "goons" are probably members of these battalions. Whatever passes for the police (under Arsen Avakov's authority) in Kiev doesn't have a hope against these people.

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:10 pm

    Baby, what you said. Hopeless. Run for it, Porky.

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:05 am

    Are we in the process of placing bets? Because I am still betting on Porky. To be sure, he doesn't have much of an army.

    But he has Geoffrey Pyatt and the American marines behind him. That has to count for something!

    "From the halls of Montezuma, to the walls of UkrNafta…"

    (or something like that)

    colliemum, March 24, 2015 at 2:23 am

    He's also got a squad of UK army 'instructors' …
    ;-)

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 2:33 am

    Which side is Yats Rats on? I reckon he's the one that runs the show there: he's Nudelman's boy after all.

    james, March 23, 2015 at 6:29 pm

    more info/subjective angle – http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/150328.html

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:08 am

    Yeah, see, Cassad agrees with me. Benny is toast!

    davidt, March 23, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Alastair Crooke has posted two new articles at Conflicts Forum. The first discusses a possible Iran agreement. To quote from the article:

    "Iran has already dropped the dollar as a means of trading. And as the non-dollar economic system expands with a SWIFT financial clearing system already launched, with Central Bank non-dollar currency swaps in place and a putative non-dollar jurisdiction banking system under construction by China and Russia, Iranians are now seeing the alternative, and getting fed up with hanging on the eternal "will they/won't they" lift sanctions hiatus."

    http://www.conflictsforum.org/2015/how-would-an-iran-agreement-impact-on-irans-geo-political-situation/

    davidt, March 23, 2015 at 5:57 am

    The second of Alastair Crooke's posts considers Greece's travails with the EU "system", which he sees as similar to Russia's conflict with the global "system".

    http://www.conflictsforum.org/2015/widening-geo-political-linkages-and-the-middle-east/

    ... ... ....

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am
    Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on?

    Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta

    marknesop, March 24, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Kolomoisky is out of control – before any of those too-rich-to-give-a-fuck oligarchs start thinking about an armed takeover, they should consider how their plan meshes with the west's plan. Because if they are in competition rather than harmony, that oligarch will be squashed. And Benny is embarrassing – it was already inconceivable that Ukraine would be accepted for membership in the European Union, the west just wants to use it as a "stone frigate" against Russia, but how much more inconceivable is it now, with Benny's antics? Besides, he did not even make Nuland's "A" list, so obviously the notion of his being the rebel King of Ukraine was never entertained. Nuland wants Yats, who is watching with interest to see who will emerge victorious from this street fight.

    On a totally unrelated subject, I just picked up Mrs. Stooge from the Ferry home; she spoke glowingly of your handsomeness, enviable bearing and manner. Mrs. Exile will have to keep you on a short leash, you lady-killer. For the prizewinners Jen and James, I have acquired perhaps the only set of metal Novorossiyan soldiers in Canada. I haven't seen them yet, the missus just dropped me off at work and headed home without even taking her suitcase out of the car, but I will get about the business of sending them forthwith. I think I will save Strelkov for last or for the 100,00th comment, but once I have a look at them I will describe the others for the winners' choice – Jen first, and then James.

    et Al, March 23, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    RT OpEd: Anti-Russian propaganda is 'unconvincing', because Western narrative is false

    http://rt.com/op-edge/243237-eu-russia-propaganda-counter-war/

    ###

    Neil Clark doesn't mess about and it is not complicated. The West's response to the failure of the general public to swallow hook, line and sinker its bs line on Ukraine is because it is bs an people know it. Their strategy to counter 'Russian propaganda' is nothing more than shouting louder. Now how retarded is that? As I posted from an earlier piece from euractiv, Brussels would like a return on this investment! That's Planet Brussels for you!

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    In other news, there was no protest in Odessa yesterday, it was all a faked, crappy provocation by a Kremlin-sponsored TV station that provided not only the phony protesters, but phony Right Sektor goons to attack them. Totally phony, from the word "Go". Nothing to see here, return to your homes.

    Moscow Exile, March 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    By way of Russia Insider by A. Karlin:

    The Moor Has Done His Duty*

    Freedom! Don't ya'll just love the sound of that word!

    Freedom of speech, freedom of the press! You just cannot get enough of it in the Land of the Free.

    From a comment to the above:

    I even think that Putin, where [sic] he a sane man, could have obtained the return of Crimea peacefully had he not been a psychotic killer.

    Another Internet clinical psychiatrist, I presume.

    * "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go" .

    From Schiller's "Die Verschwörung des Fiesco zu Genua" [Fiesco's Conspiracy at Genoa]: Der Mohr hat seine Schuldigkeit getan, der Mohr kann gehen, meaning "once you have served your purpose, you are no longer needed".

    [Mar 24, 2015] Why Ron Paul is Right about Ukraine by Dan Sanchez

    Mar 24, 2015 | antiwar.com

    How should libertarians assess the crisis in Ukraine? Some would have us believe that a true commitment to liberty entails (1) glorifying the "Euromaidan revolution" and the government it installed in Kiev, (2) welcoming, excusing, or studiously ignoring US involvement with that revolution and government, and (3) hysterically demonizing Vladimir Putin and his administration for Russia's involvement in the affair. Since Ron Paul refuses to follow this formula or to remain silent on the issue, these "NATO-tarians," as Justin Raimondo refers to them, deride him as an anti-freedom, anti-American, shill for the Kremlin.

    Dr. Paul takes it all in stride of course, having endured the same kind of smears and dishonest rhetorical tricks his entire career. As he surely knows, the price of being a principled anti-interventionist is eternal patience. Still, it must be frustrating. After all he has done to teach Americans about the evils of empire and the bitter fruits of intervention, there are still legions of self-styled libertarians whose non-interventionism seems to go little further than admitting that the Iraq War was "a mistake," and who portray opposition to US hostility against foreign governments as outright support for those governments.

    "Yes, the Iraq War was clearly a mistake, but we have to confront Putin; we can't let Iran 'get nukes;' we've got to save the Yazidis on the mountain; we must crush ISIS, et cetera, et cetera. What are you, a stooge of the Czar/Ayatollah/Caliph?"

    Some of these same libertarians supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and presumably laughed along with the rest of us when the neocons tried to paint him as "pro-Saddam" for opposing the Iraq War and for debunking the lies and distortions that were used to sell it. Yet, today they do not hesitate to tar Dr. Paul as a "confused Pro-Putin libertarian" over his efforts to oppose US/NATO interventions in Ukraine and against Russia. Such tar has been extruded particularly profusely by an eastern-European-heavy faction of Students for Liberty which might be dubbed "Students for Collective Security."

    It should be obvious that Ron Paul holds no brief for Putin and the Kremlin. Let me inform the smear-artists and their dupes what Ron Paul is trying to do with his statements and articles about Ukraine and Russia. He is not trying to support Putin's government. He is doing what he has always done. He is trying to prevent US intervention. He is trying to stop war.

    Some NATO-tarians have responded to this assertion by asking, "If that is so, why can't he just limit himself to simply stating his principled opposition to intervention? Why must he go beyond that, all the way to reciting Kremlin talking points?"

    First of all, this is one of the most egregious fallacies that Ron Paul's critics regularly trot out: the allegation that, "because A voices agreement with B about statements of fact, then A must be doing so in the service of B."

    To see the fallacy involved clearly, let us draw out the Iraq War comparison a bit more. Before and during that war, in spite of Bush Administration and media propaganda to the contrary, Ron Paul argued that Saddam Hussein did not have a weapons of mass destruction program or ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam argued the same thing. So was Ron Paul just "reciting Baghdad talking points" back then? Was he being a "confused pro-Saddam libertarian"? No. Do you know why Ron Paul was saying the same thing as Saddam? Because it was true. As is widely accepted today, Saddam did nothave a WMD program or ties to Al Qaeda. Is it valorizing Saddam to admit that he told the truth? Again, no; it is simply to abstain from hysterically demonizing him. Of course Saddam was a head of state, and as such, he was a lying murderer. But in this instance, telling the truth happened to serve his interests, which included trying to avoid a war in which he might be overthrown and killed. Ron Paul also told the truth, because he's not a lying murderer, and because he also wanted to prevent such a disastrous war: although of course not for Saddam's sake, but for the sake of avoiding all the catastrophic results that would surely (and did) flow from it.

    Ron Paul had no love for Saddam then or for Putin today, just as, notwithstanding endless smears to the contrary, there was no love nurtured by Murray Rothbard for Khrushchev, Justin Raimondo for Milosevic, Lew Rockwell for Lukashenko, or Jacob Hornberger for Chavez. Rather, it just so happens that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the truth has a well-known anti-war bias. That is the only reason why, when speaking about the same international crises, principled anti-war voices so frequently find themselves in agreement over points of fact with tyrants who want to avoid being attacked. The truth can, in some cases, happen to serve the purposes of both good and evil men. That doesn't stop it from being the truth.

    Similarly, there are a great many true (and intervention-disfavoring) points of fact concerning Ukraine and Russia that are being completely ignored by the media, which instead regurgitates the intervention-favoring propaganda it imbibes directly from Washington, London, and the NATO bureaucracy. These truths are broadcasted, and this propaganda refuted, both by the Kremlin and by Ron Paul. But again this coincidence does not occur because the two are in cahoots. The Kremlin engages in this broadcasting and refuting because it considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be in its state interest. Ron Paul does so because, again, it is the truth, and because he considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be moral and in the interest of humanity in general (Americans, Russians, and Ukrainians, included).

    What is this propaganda that Ron Paul labors to refute, along with his Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and like-minded alternative media outlets like Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com?

    According to the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative, a peaceful protest movement emerged in Kiev against an oppressive government, was met with a deadly, unprovoked, and uncompromising crackdown, but ultimately prevailed, causing Ukraine's dictator to flee. A popularly-supported, freedom-loving, self-determination-exemplifying government then emerged. But dastardly Putin horribly invaded and conquered Crimea, and engineered a "terrorist" revolt in the east of the country. Putin is the new Hitler, and if the US and Europe don't confront him now, he will continue his conquests until he has recreated the Soviet Empire and re-erected the Iron Curtain.

    The reality of the situation, which Dr. Paul and only a handful of others strive to represent, is far different.

    First of all, the chief grievance of the protesters was not about domestic oppression; it was over foreign policy and foreign aid. They wanted closer ties with the west, and they were angry that (the duly elected) President Viktor Yanukovych had rejected a European Union Association Agreement over its severe stringency.

    Far from "organic," the movement was heavily subsidized and sponsored by the US government. Before the crisis, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragged about the US "investing" $5 billion in "helping" Ukraine become more western-oriented.

    Once the anti-government protests in Kiev were under way, both Nuland and Senator John McCain personally joined the demonstrators in Maidan Square, implicitly promising US support for a pro-western regime change. Nuland even went so far as to pass out cookies, like a sweet little imperial auntie.

    Far from peaceful, the protesters were very violent, and it is not clear which side fired the first gunshot. The Foreign Minister of Estonia, while visiting Kiev, was shown evidence that convinced him that protest leaders had hired snipers to shoot at both sides. And the BBC recently interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted to firing on the police before the conflict had become pitched.

    In fact, the hard core of the Euromaidan movement, and its most violent component, was comprised of Nazis. And no, I don't mean to say "neo-Nazi," which is a term really only appropriate for people who merely glean inspiration from historical Nazis. On the other hand, the torchlight marching fascists that spearheaded the Ukraine coup (chief among them, the Svoboda and Right Sector parties) are part of an unbroken lineal tradition that goes back to Stepan Bandera, the Nazi collaborator who brought the Holocaust to Ukraine. Even a pro-Maidan blogger wrote for The Daily Beast:

    "Of course the role that the Right Sector played in the Euromaidan cannot be underestimated. (…) They were the first to throw Molotov coctails and stones at police and to mount real and well-fortified barricades."

    Maidan protesters bearing armbands with the neo-Nazi wolf's hook symbol

    More fundamentally, what is often forgotten by many libertarians, is that revolutionary street and public square movements like Euromaidan are not "the people," but are comprised of would-be members of and partisans for a new state, every one of which is inherently an engine of violent aggression. What we saw in the clash at Maidan Square was not "Man Vs. State," but "Incoming State vs. Outgoing State."

    Far from being completely intransigent, Yanukovych agreed to early elections and assented to US demands to withdraw the riot police from the square. As soon as he did that, the government buildings were seized. The city hall was then draped with white supremacist banners.

    Far from being supported and appointed popularly and broadly, the new government's backing is highly sectional and heavily foreign. It was installed by a capital city street coup, not a countrywide revolution. In a deeply divided country, it only represented a particularly aggressive component of one side of that divide. Moreover, its top officeholders were handpicked by Nuland, and its installation was presided over by the US Vice President, as was famously revealed in an intercepted and leaked telephone recording.

    And the only thing saving the extravagantly warlike new government from bankruptcy is the unstinting flow of billions of dollars in aid from the US, the EU, and the IMF, as well as "non-lethal" military aid (including drones, armored Humvees, and training) from the US.

    Far from being freedom-loving, top offices are held by an ex-bankster (Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom Nuland handpicked when she said "Yats is our guy" in the above recording), a corrupt oligarch (chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko), and, yes, Nazis (including Andriy Parubiy, until recently the National Security chief, and Oleh Tyahnybok, also mentioned by Nuland in the recording as a key advisor to the new government, and pictured at the top of this article with Nuland and "Yats").

    Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda Party, formerly the "Social-National Party." Get it? Social-National: National Socialist?

    Far from being an exemplar of self-determination, the new regime responded to eastern attempts to assert regional autonomy with all-out war, shelling civilian centers (with cluster bombs, even) and killing thousands. Of course Nazis have also played a key role in the war. As the famous journalist Robert Parry wrote:

    "The U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is knowingly sending neo-Nazi paramilitaries into eastern Ukrainian neighborhoods to attack ethnic Russians who are regarded by some of these storm troopers as "Untermenschen" or subhuman, according to Western press reports.

    Recently, one eastern Ukrainian town, Marinka, fell to Ukraine's Azov battalion as it waved the Wolfsangel flag, a symbol used by Adolf Hitler's SS divisions in World War II. The Azov paramilitaries also attacked Donetsk, one of the remaining strongholds of ethnic Russians opposed to the Kiev regime that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February."

    Plagued by failure and desertion in spite of massive western aid, the "pro-freedom" new regime in Kiev has resorted to conscripting its non-rebeling citizens. Meeting stiff draft resistance and opposition to the war, it has jailed a journalist for merely advocating draft-dodging, prepared a law restricting the travel of draft-age citizens, contemplated conscripting women over 20, and passed a law allowing the military to shoot deserters on the spot.

    And the Nazis have also played in key role in the stifling and crushing of internal dissent as well. After the coup, Right Sector began patrolling the streets and squares of Kiev. And in Odessa, Right Sector toughs joined a mob in trapping and burning to death 38 anti-Maidan protesters in the Trades Union House.

    Whatever involvement Moscow has in it, the revolt in the east is far from engineered. People there do not need Russian money and threats to know they had absolutely no say in the regime change in distant Kiev, and that it was executed by their political enemies. Russian-speaking and heavily industrial, it would have suffered grievously, both economically and politically, had it been dragged into a new expressly anti-Russian order. It was made abundantly clear which way the wind was blowing when Tyahybok's Svoboda, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, "pushed through the cancellation of a law that gave equal status to minority languages, such as Russian," even if the cancellation was temporary.

    Far from "terrorists," the rebels are not trying to destabilize or overthrow the government in Kiev, but are seeking to establish autonomy from it. If anything, it is Kiev, with its high civilian death toll, that has been more engaged in terrorism.

    And far from Soviet revanchism, Russian policy has been largely reactive against US aggressiveness. Since Moscow dropped its side of the Cold War by relinquishing its empire, including both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the US has taken advantage by progressively expanding NATO, an explicitly anti-Moscow military pact, all the way to Russia's borders: a policy that even Cold War mastermind George Kennan, in 1998, predicted would prove to be tragic. Moscow warned Washington that Russia could not abide a hostile Ukraine, which would be a bridge too far.

    But Washington blithely pushed on to snatch Ukraine anyway. The sheer flippancy of it can be seen most vividly when Gideon Rose, editor of the US foreign policy establishment organ Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) went on The Colbert Report in the midst of the crisis and jocularly boasted about how "we want to basically distract Russia" with the shiny Olympic medals it was winning at the Sochi Olympics while getting Ukraine "to flip sides." Colbert aptly characterized this geopolitical strategy as, "Here's a shiny object! We'll just take an entire country away from you," to which Rose enthusiastically responded, "Basically!" (Perhaps to atone for such an embarrassing and pandering display of naïveté and frivolity, Rose later published an excellent article by respected establishment foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer arguing "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault." Even that old CFR-associated murder-monger Henry Kissinger has urged reconsideration.)

    The takeover included Crimea which is heavily Russian-speaking and has been under effective Russian control since the 18th century. Unsurprisingly, Washington's brilliant "Shiny Object" doctrine failed miserably, and rather than see its only warm-water port pass under the sway of an increasingly antagonistic rival, Russia asserted control over Crimea, doing so without loss of life. Later, following a referendum, Crimea was formally annexed.

    Of course this act was not "libertarian"; hardly anything that a state does is. But it is simply a warmongering distortion to characterize this bloodless foreign policy counter-move as evidence of reckless imperial Russian expansionism, especially when you compare the "invasion" of Crimea with the bloody havoc the US has wreaked upon the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia for the past 14 years.

    As for whatever meddling Russia is guilty of in eastern Ukraine, let's try to put it in perspective without absolving it. Just imagine what the US would do if Russia had supported a coup in Ottawa that installed an anti-American Canadian government right on our border, and then perpetually re-armed that government as it bombed English-speaking separatists in British Columbia. Compared to what you'd expect to follow that, Russia's response to a US-sponsored, anti-Russian junta bombing Russian speakers right on its border has been positively restrained.

    After all, it is Putin who has been constantly pushing for ceasefires against American militant obduracy and European reluctance, just as, in 2013, it was Putin who successfully pushed for a deal that prevented the US from launching yet another air war, this time against the Syrian government.

    Again, this is not to claim that any foreign intervention on the part of Moscow is at all justified on libertarian grounds, or to argue that Putin is anything more than a lying murderer who happens to be more intelligent and sane than our own lying murderers. It is only to make clear that in this respect too, Russia's involvement in the affair is hardly evidence of grand imperial designs.

    As an aside: Putin's foiling of neocon war aims in Syria (and potential future such foilings) may be the reason that the anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, and the new Putin-threatening Cold War it engendered, was advanced by Nuland, who is a neocon holdover from the Bush Administration and the wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan, in the first place.

    To think that any country is too big or too dangerous (especially if destabilized) to be targeted by neocons for regime change would be naïve. And to think Putin is too naïve to know this would be equally naïve.


    So much for the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative. Now to return to the NATO-tarian objection from above: why must Ron Paul stress these points of fact, especially when they make wicked Putin look better, or at least not-so-wicked? Why can't Dr. Paul merely state his principled opposition to intervention?

    It might make sense for him to do so if that were enough to make a difference. But the thing is, it's not. The sad but inescapable fact is that the American people are not operating under the same moral premises as Ron Paul and other principled libertarians. As such, the public is susceptible to war lies and distortions. And the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative about Ukraine and Russia is nothing but a tissue of war lies and distortions.

    As the warmongers are abundantly aware, if Kiev is sufficiently falsely valorized, Washington/NATO sufficiently falsely absolved, and Putin and the eastern separatists sufficiently falsely demonized, then American opinion will provide cover for US intervention, regardless of what principled libertarians say. So the only way to practically stop such intervention is to go beyond statements of principle and to debunk those war lies and distortions; moreover, to debunk them bravely and forthrightly, even if the Kremlin is also trying to debunk them, and even if simple-minded or lying critics will use that parallel to smear you as an agent of a foreign power.

    Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention.

    So much for Ron Paul's "ulterior motives." But what about some of his critics? A question actually worth asking is as follows: Why are some of his avowedly libertarian critics, many of whom profess not to favor intervention (or at least studiously avoid talking about that question concretely) so absolutely livid over Ron Paul's challenge to their narrative? Their English-language blasts against Dr. Paul are also not likely to effect Putin's domestic support one way or the other. Their only possible impact is also on US foreign policy. So, why are they so extremely sensitive about the acceptance in America of a narrative that lends itself toward intervention and confrontation? The question answers itself.

    Let me close with a few additional questions.

    Why is it "defending tyranny" for Ron Paul to agree with Putin on points of fact, but not for "libertarians" to hail a government that rose to power in a violent putsch, that welcomes outright Nazis in its ranks, that conscripts its people, and that drops cluster bombs on civilians?

    What exactly is "libertarian" about NATO, which amounts to an hegemonic, dual-hemisphere, nuclear tripwire, species suicide pact?

    What is so secure about a state of "collective security" in which petulant, reckless nationalists in small eastern European countries can drag the whole world into nuclear war over a border dispute?

    And finally, why should a new Cold War be launched, and the risk of nuclear annihilation for all our families and hometowns be heightened over the question of which clique rules a particular river basin on the other side of the world?

    Ron Paul has excellent, solidly libertarian answers to all these questions. Do his critics?


    Also published at Medium.com. Follow Dan Sanchez via Twitter, or TinyLetter.


    Dax

    Wow, what a sad mess the U.S. government is. It's quite frustrating how little say we peons have on what our rulers arbitrarily do to other countries that are no threat to us whatsoever. And these wannabe Ukrainian Nazis...I had no idea they were so powerful in number. Are their attacks on ethnic Russians some sort of "cosmic revenge" for the Soviet Union's starvation of Ukrainians in the 30's? The whole thing is a nightmare. May our leaders burn in hell for the misery they've helped create.

    johndavit66

    Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention. Thank for share
    Friv 100000

    Michael

    mind blowingly rational stream of conscious and geo-political conscience! It makes tremendous sense particularly if you feel we have been recently duped into 20 or so highly profitable (for oligarchs and financial institutions) wars. Assuming they are going to have another real war with Russia for fun and neo-con profit, where are they going to live in blissful retirement to spend the loot without getting attacked or dripped-on by glow-in the dark irradiated zombies? Are some wars better not started regardless of the causus belli or opportunity for plunder? Is setting-up a game of nuclear armed chicken with the second most powerful alliance on the planet still a good idea if you were planning to retire and spend time growing rhodos and fishing and playing baseball with your grandchildren?

    Do neo-cons have a we-were-just-kidding plan "B" or are they truly to committed to a global sepuku / samson option if they / we lose? Do neo-cons do anything other than dream big about obliterating evil comic book enemies and ruling the world? Is it too late to invent a drug or make a video game or addictive snuff porn to keep them better occupied? How come all the neo-cons are moving to the USA and no one elsewhere is complaining about a shortage of them?


    Claus Eric Hamle

    It is really like 2+2=4: Deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe (Poland and Romania) leads to Launch On Warning (probably by 2017) and Suicide by accident/mistake. What else can the Russians do to defend themselves ? Will they even announce when they adopt Launch On Warning=Suicide Guaranteed. The crazy Americans asked for it -- The Russians want to be certain that they won't die alone. Stupid, crazy, bloody fools in the Pentagon !!!

    [Mar 21, 2015] Propaganda Shouldn't Pay by NICK COHEN

    July/August 2014 | standpointmag.co.uk

    Spinner-in-chief: Every tinpot PR now thinks he is Alastair Campbell

    As with Nye Bevan and Conservatives so with me and PR departments: "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for press officers. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." Or as the BBC's economics editor Robert Peston put it in his recent Charles Wheeler lecture, "I have never been in any doubt that PRs are the enemy."

    Let me explain how they are the nearest thing to prostitutes you can find in public life. You might say that biased reporters look more like sex workers, as they try to satisfy their readers' every whim. But there is a small difference. The biased journalist occasionally tells the truth. He might produce propaganda, but his bias or that of his editor will cause him to investigate stories conventional wisdom does not notice. Right-wing journalists uncover truths about corruption in the European Union. Left-wing journalists discover truths about the crimes of Nato armies. They look at scandals others ignore precisely because they do not think like level-headed and respectable members of the mainstream.

    Press officers have no concern with truth. It is not that all of them lie - although many do - rather that truth and falsity are irrelevant to their work. Their sole concern is to defend their employers' interests. That they can manipulate on behalf of central government, local authority and other public bodies is an under-acknowledged scandal. The party in power that wishes to stop public scrutiny, or the NHS trust whose executives wish to maintain their positions, use taxpayer funds to advance their personal or political interests. If anyone else did the same, we would call them thieves.

    It makes no difference who is in office. Conservatives complained about the spin and manipulation of New Labour but they are no different now. Indeed they are playing tricks those of us who lived through the Blair years haven't seen before.

    They withhold information from journalists in the hope of killing a story. If reporters publish nevertheless - as they should - the government tells their editors and anyone else who will listen that they are shoddy hacks who failed to put the other side of the story. An alternative tactic is for press officers to phone up at night, just after an article has appeared online, and try to bamboozle late-duty editors into making changes. I have had the Crown Prosecution Service and the BBC try to pull that one on me. That neither institution is in the political thick of it only goes to show that every dandruff-ridden PR in every backwater office now thinks he is Alastair Campbell.

    Politicians and senior civil servants do not rate state-sponsored propagandists by their ability to tell the public what is done in their name with their money. Like corporate chief executives and celebrities, they judge them by their ability to keep uncomfortable stories out of the press.

    Compare PRs with other despised trades. Journalists have blown the whistle on journalistic malpractice. Bankers have blown the whistle on financial malpractice. But I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion.

    Once you could have said that my comparison between press officers and prostitutes was unfair - to prostitutes. Poverty and drug addiction drives women on to the street. Press officers are not heroin addicts or the victims of child abuse. Nor do the equivalent of sex traffickers kidnap media studies graduates and force them to work in "comms". PRs do not do what they do because a cruel world has left them with no alternative to selling their souls, but because they want to.

    But that is no longer quite right. As the web destroys the media's business model, PR is where the jobs are. Students leave university and go straight into PR or hang around newsrooms for a few years on internships and petty payments before giving up and joining the former reporters in PR departments.

    A profound shift in the balance of power is under way, and the advantage lies with those who can buy coverage. You can see it on the screen and in the press. Television royal coverage is run by Buckingham Palace - I always tell foreigners that if they want to know what Britain would look like if it were a dictatorship, they should watch how the BBC reports the monarchy. Travel journalism is advertising in all but name. Press offices give travel "journalists" free holidays and they repay the favour in kind copy. Political coverage is still of a high quality, but the state-funded BBC is always open to attack from the state's spin doctors. Meanwhile most serious news, business and arts journalism remains clean, but Private Eye has reported anger among Daily Telegraph journalists about the advertising department's attempts to influence what they write.

    Such conflicts will grow. The web has made most newspapers imitate most television stations. They give away their content and rely on advertising for an income. At the same time, the web has lowered the price of advertising by making a vast number of new outlets available to advertisers. In his speech, which is worth reading in full online, Peston said: "News that is a disguised advert, or has been tainted by commercial interests, is not worth the name." But the need for money is pushing newspapers into creating more cloaked commercials.

    Without sales revenue or conventional advertising revenue, media marketing departments are offering what they call "native" advertisements: commercials disguised as news features. Peston says BBC executives are thinking of doing the same - though how they could hope to retain public funding if they do is beyond me. Readers may not be aware that the videos they are watching or the stories they are reading are "sponsored content", and that is the point. Manipulation works best when no one realises it is happening. PR departments aren't just influencing or stifling news, but creating it, and passing off advertisements as independent journalism.

    We are heading towards a media future that is not worth having. To avoid it we will need strict controls, backed by criminal sanctions, against the use of public money for propaganda, and a popular revolt against a pestilential trade. A start could be made by journalists. We should refuse to speak to press officers unless we intend to give them the ridicule and contempt they deserve.

    Anonymous

    September 8th, 2014
    8:09 PM

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry and the irony and stupidity of the comparison between PR's and 'sex workers'. This is written by someone who is clearly unable to cast a critical eye on the propaganda campaign which upholds the nasty power structures between men and the women that they demonise in order to exploit. Maybe he can have a decent opinion on propaganda without being aware of how it is saturated into his own understanding of the world but dear God what a way to undermine oneself only a few lines into to a rant against propaganda. Laugh or give up all hope? The predictable defences, outrage and mocking of the other commenters in response to this will probably means hopelessness is the appropriate response.

    Captain Nemo Vero

    July 30th, 2014
    7:07 PM

    Cohen ignores (among so much else) the blithe and cosy relationship between the BBC and Guardian on the one hand and "campaigning organizations" on the other. When Greenpeace claimed what they called "bottom-trawlering" (must be something done on Hampstead Heath; I think they mean "bottom trawling", or dredging) "destroyed 10,000 species", they did so without one shred of scientific evidence. Nonetheless, the story was given a DPS in the Times and The Guardian before the PR department at a fishing industry body forced a retraction.

    The same PR department won an apology from The Times over inaccurate posters in the London underground falsely repeating Daniel Pauly's now-recanted saw that there would be no fish left in the sea by 2048; and so on and so on.

    The liars and whores among journalists (since when is it a "profession" by the way? That implies a barrier to entry, and there is no such thing in journalism)also need exposition, and to ignore this fact is to ignore reality.

    Anon

    July 28th, 2014
    4:07 PM

    Nick makes the good point that the balance of power is changing. There used to be lots of journalists with enough time on their hands to properly research a story. That isn't the case now. It means that an increasing amount of copy is PR-generated. Given the financial travails of most media outlets I can't see that changing. A journalist under pressure to fill his/her publication must be tempted to believe any old guff. There is an answer - the internet. I see very many well-informed blogs. I learn more from them than I do from the BBC or newspapers. It's a shame that so few people read them.

    Countdown2

    July 10th, 2014
    2:07 PM

    Surely Robert Peston doesn't think the output of a future BBC which would have to pay its way by giving advertisers what they want can be any worse than the current outfit which acts like the propaganda wing of the Green Party?

    Richard Whipple

    July 9th, 2014
    6:07 PM

    So, now I have read and digested the article and I see a bunch on my colleagues in this discussion here and I have to ask: WHERE ARE YOUR VOICES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR TRADE (I refuse to demean the term profession)? True press agentry is not the sum total of PR's potential to be a voice in business but how many clients call up a PR agency for a Corporate Conscience. And just where and by whom is this work taught? After three decades work on multiple continents with Fortune 100 companies I am willing to intuit that a good 99% of calls into the name brand PR agencies, which are all controlled by three corporations, are for perception management rather than Corporate Conscience/Governance work.

    *** Press officers have no concern with truth. truth and falsity are irrelevant to their work. ***

    This is spot on. PRSA pays lip service to ethics but without a revocable professional license, the service to the public is meaningless spin. And they do not want to pursue a licensing agenda. Rather they shame whistleblowers (contrary to policy).

    *** They withhold information from journalists in the hope of killing a story. ***

    How we have fallen from the management of information to withholding it altogether. Technically, still information management. Amazing what multitude of sins good phrasing can cover up, no? But let's not stop there. Let's consider what PR did for the tobacco industry or in the case of American Express vs. Edward Safra.

    *** I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion. ***

    You would have if you were in PR: Scott McClellan, Edward Bernays, Ivy Lee and others who are/were vilified. My mentor called for licensing and freely admitted his role in black public relations work for everyone: a real gun for hire. He wrote clearly worded books entitled Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion. And that's where I get to the point that this trade will not be a profession – an independent symmetric voice for the public inside institutions to do the kind of work Glenn M. Broom and David M. Dozier detailed in Using Research in Public Relations.

    But there is no money in that kind of Corporate Conscience work when you get crowded out of a market managed by an oligarchy of corporations, DSM IV qualified sociopathic. Better financially to play ball and those university students have debt to pay. http://earthisnotround.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-10-companies.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk WHERE ARE OUR FEARLESS VOICES? They are not working for the three corporations that own 90% of the industry.

    andygreencreativity

    July 6th, 2014
    1:07 PM

    Lively stirring up of debate here - and highlights the need for coherent, robust and relevant theory and definitions of what constitutes 'PR' and 'propaganda'. Can I alert you to an independent, not-for-profit global initiative which would help all sides in this debate, called #PRredefined. It currently covers issues such as 'truthiness', 'integrity' and 'values' and 'propaganda' and welcomes your input at wwww.prredefined.org

    wtloild

    July 3rd, 2014
    2:07 PM

    Fantastic piece on an point that doesn't get raised enough. I worked in local govt for 20yrs & the cancerous impact of this spin culture annoyed me throughout. However...I'll make one point in their defence - there are numerous instances where council clients go to the press attacking the authority with their very one-sided story, often a pack of lies, yet because of confidentiality rules, the council is unable to denounce those blatant untruths. I'd suggest that where an individual chooses to share their story, they then waive some right to confidentiality, and the public body can respond with the facts of the case.

    Mary WillowAnonymous

    July 3rd, 2014
    1:07 PM

    The problem is the definition of 'lie' is as difficult to pin down as a definition of 'truth' A witness under oath promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth- not simply to tell the 'truth'. PR is just PR speak for propaganda whenever its purpose is to deceive or mislead. If PR people had ever attended a Catholic primary school they would know from their catechism that it is perfectly possible to lie by omission and that St Peter at the pearly gates has no tick box for letting you off on a technicality.

    Anon

    June 27th, 2014
    10:06 AM

    If PRs were named by whoever quotes them the lies would reduce drastically. The anonymity they enjoy is the fuel that allows them to lie.

    Oldster

    June 27th, 2014
    9:06 AM

    'Twas ever thus, as you will recall from John Betjeman's poem "Executive" and Malcolm Muggeridge's description of PR as "organised lying".

    James Matthews

    June 27th, 2014
    8:06 AM

    Prostitutes should sue.

    reluctant_pseudonym

    June 26th, 2014
    5:06 PM

    "I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion." => Damian McBride?

    Tim Almond

    June 26th, 2014
    4:06 PM

    "Compare PRs with other despised trades. Journalists have blown the whistle on journalistic malpractice. Bankers have blown the whistle on financial malpractice. But I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion." Know what else PRs do? They protect business people from giving a reasonable and honest interview that is twisted into a sensational story that paints them as a villain by pushing certain elements to the fore and omitting certain aspects completely.

    Julian Kavanagh

    June 26th, 2014
    4:06 PM

    I think Nick needs to have more faith in journalists and the democratic nature of information in the internet age. I work for a FTSE100 company as a corporate PR (Julian Kavanagh is a pseudonym, by the way). When I speak to journalists (and I do so most days) I push the company line - of course - but my main job is to help journalists navigate the vast swathes of information and opinion already out there and provide background detail and context (often political) to the news that we're announcing. The point about the Telegraph is interesting. In my experience, the woeful journalism at the Telegraph is a result of Telegraph journalists being chained to their desks providing web content rather than going our and getting stories. I should also add that while my loyalty to the company is clear, the first rule of a good PR is that there are no circumstances under which it is acceptable to lie. If you don't like a question or don't want to compromise yourself, then reach for 'no comment.' If my CEO asked me to lie to a journalist, I would resign. Finally, both Robert Peston and Nick Cohen have given the impression with their diatribes against PR that they are on the side of the angels. They and their fellow journalists are clearly not - journalists have their agendas too. If they were on the side of the angels, would CEOs and other feel there is a need for press officers?

    Harold

    June 26th, 2014
    3:06 PM

    But even worse are the 'journalists' who get a by-line for regurgiating a slightly altered press release.

    [Mar 20, 2015] Rethinking the National Interest by Condoleezza Rice

    If you compare this with Nuland's recent testimony, it's clear Condoleezza Rice was higher quality diplomat then Victoria Nuland. Both are neocons although Ms. Rise was less supportive of Israel. But true to neocon doctrine when she said "especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values." she means neoliberal values (aka "Washington consensus") under which Russia should play the role of vassal of the USA (like all other countries). A colony.
    You should replace "democratization" with "neoliberalization" globally in the text to understand the real interests she defends.
    July 1, 2008 | Foreign Affairs

    Listen to this essay on CFR.org

    What is the national interest? This is a question that I took up in 2000 in these pages. That was a time that we as a nation revealingly called "the post-Cold War era." We knew better where we had been than where we were going. Yet monumental changes were unfolding -- changes that were recognized at the time but whose implications were largely unclear.

    And then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. As in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new urgency and with a new perspective on what constituted threats and what might emerge as opportunities. And as with previous strategic shocks, one can cite elements of both continuity and change in our foreign policy since the attacks of September 11.

    What has not changed is that our relations with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy. Thus, my admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the "relationships with the big powers" -- Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.

    What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy. We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    As in the past, our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. The United States has long tried to marry power and principle -- realism and idealism. At times, there have been short-term tensions between them. But we have always known where our long-term interests lie. Thus, the United States has not been neutral about the importance of human rights or the superiority of democracy as a form of government, both in principle and in practice. This uniquely American realism has guided us over the past eight years, and it must guide us over the years to come.

    GREAT POWER, OLD AND NEW

    By necessity, our relationships with Russia and China have been rooted more in common interests than common values. With Russia, we have found common ground, as evidenced by the "strategic framework" agreement that President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed in Sochi in March of this year. Our relationship with Russia has been sorely tested by Moscow's rhetoric, by its tendency to treat its neighbors as lost "spheres of influence," and by its energy policies that have a distinct political tinge. And Russia's internal course has been a source of considerable disappointment, especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values.

    Yet it is useful to remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is neither a permanent enemy nor a strategic threat. Russians now enjoy greater opportunity and, yes, personal freedom than at almost any other time in their country's history. But that alone is not the standard to which Russians themselves want to be held. Russia is not just a great power; it is also the land and culture of a great people. And in the twenty-first century, greatness is increasingly defined by the technological and economic development that flows naturally in open and free societies. That is why the full development both of Russia and of our relationship with it still hangs in the balance as the country's internal transformation unfolds.

    The last eight years have also challenged us to deal with rising Chinese influence, something we have no reason to fear if that power is used responsibly. We have stressed to Beijing that with China's full membership in the international community comes responsibilities, whether in the conduct of its economic and trade policy, its approach to energy and the environment, or its policies in the developing world. China's leaders increasingly realize this, and they are moving, albeit slowly, to a more cooperative approach on a range of problems. For instance, on Darfur, after years of unequivocally supporting Khartoum, China endorsed the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force and dispatched an engineering battalion to pave the way for those peacekeepers. China needs to do much more on issues such as Darfur, Burma, and Tibet, but we sustain an active and candid dialogue with China's leaders on these challenges.

    The United States, along with many other countries, remains concerned about China's rapid development of high-tech weapons systems. We understand that as countries develop, they will modernize their armed forces. But China's lack of transparency about its military spending and doctrine and its strategic goals increases mistrust and suspicion. Although Beijing has agreed to take incremental steps to deepen U.S.-Chinese military-to-military exchanges, it needs to move beyond the rhetoric of peaceful intentions toward true engagement in order to reassure the international community.

    Our relationships with Russia and China are complex and characterized simultaneously by competition and cooperation. But in the absence of workable relations with both of these states, diplomatic solutions to many international problems would be elusive. Transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and instability stemming from poverty and disease -- these are dangers to all successful states, including those that might in another time have been violent rivals. It is incumbent on the United States to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant differences.

    Obviously, Russia and China carry special responsibility and weight as fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, but this has not been the only forum in which we have worked together. Another example has emerged in Northeast Asia with the six-party framework. The North Korean nuclear issue could have led to conflict among the states of Northeast Asia, or to the isolation of the United States, given the varied and vital interests of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Instead, it has become an opportunity for cooperation and coordination as the efforts toward verifiable denuclearization proceed. And when North Korea tested a nuclear device last year, the five other parties already were an established coalition and went quickly to the Security Council for a Chapter 7 resolution. That, in turn, put considerable pressure on North Korea to return to the six-party talks and to shut down and begin disabling its Yongbyon reactor. The parties intend to institutionalize these habits of cooperation through the establishment of a Northeast Asian Peace and Security Mechanism -- a first step toward a security forum in the region.

    The importance of strong relations with global players extends to those that are emerging. With those, particularly India and Brazil, the United States has built deeper and broader ties. India stands on the front lines of globalization. This democratic nation promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law. Brazil's success at using democracy and markets to address centuries of pernicious social inequality has global resonance. Today, India and Brazil look outward as never before, secure in their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. In both countries, national interests are being redefined as Indians and Brazilians realize their direct stake in a democratic, secure, and open international order -- and their commensurate responsibilities for strengthening it and defending it against the major transnational challenges of our era. We have a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies with global reach, such as Indonesia and South Africa. And as these emerging powers change the geopolitical landscape, it will be important that international institutions also change to reflect this reality. This is why President Bush has made clear his support for a reasonable expansion of the UN Security Council.

    SHARED VALUES AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

    As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we share values, that is transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand the ranks of well-governed, law-abiding democratic states in our world and to defeat challenges to this vision of international order. Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore, should not be judged simply by how we relate to one another. It should be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges, defend human rights and dignity, and support new democracies.

    In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Chile in order to further the democratic development of our hemisphere. Together, we have supported struggling states, such as Haiti, in locking in their transitions to democracy and security. Together, we are defending ourselves against drug traffickers, criminal gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming transition and the need to support, unequivocally, the Cuban people's right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old suspicions of the United States persist in the region. But we have begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to macroeconomic development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to address problems of social justice and inequality.

    I believe that one of the most compelling stories of our time is our relationship with our oldest allies. The goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace is very close to completion. The United States welcomes a strong, united, and coherent Europe. There is no doubt that the European Union has been a superb anchor for the democratic evolution of eastern Europe after the Cold War. Hopefully, the day will come when Turkey takes its place in the EU.

    Membership in the EU and NATO has been attractive enough to lead countries to make needed reforms and to seek the peaceful resolution of long-standing conflicts with their neighbors. The reverse has been true as well: the new members have transformed these two pillars of the transatlantic relationship. Twelve of the 28 members of NATO are former "captive nations," countries once in the Soviet sphere. The effect of their joining the alliance is felt in a renewed dedication to promoting and protecting democracy. Whether sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq or fiercely defending the continued expansion of NATO, these states have brought new energy and fervor to the alliance.

    In recent years, the mission and the purpose of the alliance have also been transformed. Indeed, many can remember when NATO viewed the world in two parts: Europe and "out of area," which was basically everywhere else. If someone had said in 2000 that NATO today would be rooting out terrorists in Kandahar, training the security forces of a free Iraq, providing critical support to peacekeepers in Darfur, and moving forward on missile defenses, hopefully in partnership with Russia, who would have believed him? The endurance and resilience of the transatlantic alliance is one reason that I believe Lord Palmerston got it wrong when he said that nations have no permanent allies. The United States does have permanent allies: the nations with whom we share common values.

    Democratization is also deepening across the Asia-Pacific region. This is expanding our circle of allies and advancing the goals we share. Indeed, although many assume that the rise of China will determine the future of Asia, so, too -- and perhaps to an even greater degree -- will the broader rise of an increasingly democratic community of Asian states. This is the defining geopolitical event of the twenty-first century, and the United States is right in the middle of it. We enjoy a strong, democratic alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia, and with Japan -- an economic giant that is emerging as a "normal" state, capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond. South Korea, too, has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity. Finally, the United States has a vital stake in India's rise to global power and prosperity, and relations between the two countries have never been stronger or broader. It will take continued work, but this is a dramatic breakthrough for both our strategic interests and our values.

    It is now possible to speak of emerging democratic allies in Africa as well. Too often, Africa is thought of only as a humanitarian concern or a zone of conflict. But the continent has seen successful transitions to democracy in several states, among them Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Mozambique. Our administration has worked to help the democratic leaders of these and other states provide for their people -- most of all by attacking the continental scourge of HIV/AIDS in an unprecedented effort of power, imagination, and mercy. We have also been an active partner in resolving conflicts -- from the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, to active engagement in the Great Lakes region, to the intervention of a small contingent of U.S. military forces in coordination with the African Union to end the conflict in Liberia. Although conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, and other places tragically remain violent and unresolved, it is worth noting the considerable progress that African states are making on many fronts and the role that the United States has played in supporting African efforts to solve the continent's greatest problems.

    A DEMOCRATIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT

    Although the United States' ability to influence strong states is limited, our ability to enhance the peaceful political and economic development of weak and poorly governed states can be considerable. We must be willing to use our power for this purpose -- not only because it is necessary but also because it is right. Too often, promoting democracy and promoting development are thought of as separate goals. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development -- and that market-driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy. Democratic development is a unified political-economic model, and it offers the mix of flexibility and stability that best enables states to seize globalization's opportunities and manage its challenges. And for those who think otherwise: What real alternative worthy of America is there?

    Democratic development is not only an effective path to wealth and power; it is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence. We saw this recently in Kenya, where democracy enabled civil society, the press, and business leaders to join together to insist on an inclusive political bargain that could stem the country's slide into ethnic cleansing and lay a broader foundation for national reconciliation. In our own hemisphere, democratic development has opened up old, elite-dominated systems to millions on the margins of society. These people are demanding the benefits of citizenship long denied them, and because they are doing so democratically, the real story in our hemisphere since 2001 is not that our neighbors have given up on democracy and open markets; it is that they are broadening our region's consensus in support of democratic development by ensuring that it leads to social justice for the most marginalized citizens.

    The untidiness of democracy has led some to wonder if weak states might not be better off passing through a period of authoritarian capitalism. A few countries have indeed succeeded with this model, and its allure is only heightened when democracy is too slow in delivering or incapable of meeting high expectations for a better life. Yet for every state that embraces authoritarianism and manages to create wealth, there are many, many more that simply make poverty, inequality, and corruption worse. For those that are doing pretty well economically, it is worth asking whether they might be doing even better with a freer system. Ultimately, it is at least an open question whether authoritarian capitalism is itself an indefinitely sustainable model. Is it really possible in the long run for governments to respect their citizen's talents but not their rights? I, for one, doubt it.

    For the United States, promoting democratic development must remain a top priority. Indeed, there is no realistic alternative that we can -- or should -- offer to influence the peaceful evolution of weak and poorly governed states. The real question is not whether to pursue this course but how.

    We first need to recognize that democratic development is always possible but never fast or easy. This is because democracy is really the complex interplay of democratic practices and culture. In the experience of countless nations, ours especially, we see that culture is not destiny. Nations of every culture, race, religion, and level of development have embraced democracy and adapted it to their own circumstances and traditions. No cultural factor has yet been a stumbling block -- not German or Japanese "militarism," not "Asian values," not African "tribalism," not Latin America's alleged fondness for caudillos, not the once-purported preference of eastern Europeans for despotism.

    The fact is, few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture. The vast majority create one over time -- through the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share power justly. Unfortunately, it is difficult to grow the habits of democracy in the controlled environment of authoritarianism, to have them ready and in place when tyranny is lifted. The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but it is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. This is true but beside the point. It is more likely that tyranny has to be imposed.

    The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy -- the right to choose those who will govern them and other basic freedoms. It is, instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient with them and holding them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life. It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders, support their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when their nations have experienced crippling conflicts. To do so will require long-term partnerships rooted in mutual responsibility and the integration of all elements of our national power -- political, diplomatic, economic, and, at times, military. We have recently built such partnerships to great effect with countries as different as Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Indeed, a decade ago, Colombia was on the verge of failure. Today, in part because of our long-term partnership with courageous leaders and citizens, Colombia is emerging as a normal nation, with democratic institutions that are defending the country, governing justly, reducing poverty, and contributing to international security.

    We must now build long-term partnerships with other new and fragile democracies, especially Afghanistan. The basics of democracy are taking root in this country after nearly three decades of tyranny, violence, and war. For the first time in their history, Afghans have a government of the people, elected in presidential and parliamentary elections, and guided by a constitution that codifies the rights of all citizens. The challenges in Afghanistan do not stem from a strong enemy. The Taliban offers a political vision that very few Afghans embrace. Rather, they exploit the current limitations of the Afghan government, using violence against civilians and revenues from illegal narcotics to impose their rule. Where the Afghan government, with support from the international community, has been able to provide good governance and economic opportunity, the Taliban is in retreat. The United States and NATO have a vital interest in supporting the emergence of an effective, democratic Afghan state that can defeat the Taliban and deliver "population security" -- addressing basic needs for safety, services, the rule of law, and increased economic opportunity. We share this goal with the Afghan people, who do not want us to leave until we have accomplished our common mission. We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we must be prepared to sustain a partnership with that new democracy for many years to come.

    One of our best tools for supporting states in building democratic institutions and strengthening civil society is our foreign assistance, but we must use it correctly. One of the great advances of the past eight years has been the creation of a bipartisan consensus for the more strategic use of foreign assistance. We have begun to transform our assistance into an incentive for developing states to govern justly, advance economic freedom, and invest in their people. This is the great innovation of the Millennium Challenge Account initiative. More broadly, we are now better aligning our foreign aid with our foreign policy goals -- so as to help developing countries move from war to peace, poverty to prosperity, poor governance to democracy and the rule of law. At the same time, we have launched historic efforts to help remove obstacles to democratic development -- by forgiving old debts, feeding the hungry, expanding access to education, and fighting pandemics such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Behind all of these efforts is the overwhelming generosity of the American people, who since 2001 have supported the near tripling of the United States' official development assistance worldwide -- doubling it for Latin America and quadrupling it for Africa.

    Ultimately, one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institutions and civil society is to expand free and fair trade and investment. The very process of implementing a trade agreement or a bilateral investment treaty helps to hasten and consolidate democratic development. Legal and political institutions that can enforce property rights are better able to protect human rights and the rule of law. Independent courts that can resolve commercial disputes can better resolve civil and political disputes. The transparency needed to fight corporate corruption makes it harder for political corruption to go unnoticed and unpunished. A rising middle class also creates new centers of social power for political movements and parties. Trade is a divisive issue in our country right now, but we must not forget that it is essential not only for the health of our domestic economy but also for the success our foreign policy.

    There will always be humanitarian needs, but our goal must be to use the tools of foreign assistance, security cooperation, and trade together to help countries graduate to self-sufficiency. We must insist that these tools be used to promote democratic development. It is in our national interest to do so.

    THE CHANGING MIDDLE EAST

    What about the broader Middle East, the arc of states that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan? The Bush administration's approach to this region has been its most vivid departure from prior policy. But our approach is, in reality, an extension of traditional tenets -- incorporating human rights and the promotion of democratic development into a policy meant to further our national interest. What is exceptional is that the Middle East was treated as an exception for so many decades. U.S. policy there focused almost exclusively on stability. There was little dialogue, certainly not publicly, about the need for democratic change.

    For six decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a basic bargain defined the United States' engagement in the broader Middle East: we supported authoritarian regimes, and they supported our shared interest in regional stability. After September 11, it became increasingly clear that this old bargain had produced false stability. There were virtually no legitimate channels for political expression in the region. But this did not mean that there was no political activity. There was -- in madrasahs and radical mosques. It is no wonder that the best-organized political forces were extremist groups. And it was there, in the shadows, that al Qaeda found the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers in its millenarian war against the "far enemy."

    One response would have been to fight the terrorists without addressing this underlying cause. Perhaps it would have been possible to manage these suppressed tensions for a while. Indeed, the quest for justice and a new equilibrium on which the nations of the broader Middle East are now embarked is very turbulent. But is it really worse than the situation before? Worse than when Lebanon suffered under the boot of Syrian military occupation? Worse than when the self-appointed rulers of the Palestinians personally pocketed the world's generosity and squandered their best chance for a two-state peace? Worse than when the international community imposed sanctions on innocent Iraqis in order to punish the man who tyrannized them, threatened Iraq's neighbors, and bulldozed 300,000 human beings into unmarked mass graves? Or worse than the decades of oppression and denied opportunity that spawned hopelessness, fed hatreds, and led to the sort of radicalization that brought about the ideology behind the September 11 attacks? Far from being the model of stability that some seem to remember, the Middle East from 1945 on was wracked repeatedly by civil conflicts and cross-border wars. Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East -- for they yielded neither justice nor stability.

    The president's second inaugural address and my speech at the American University in Cairo in June 2005 have been held up as rhetorical declarations that have faded in the face of hard realities. No one will argue that the goal of democratization and modernization in the broader Middle East lacks ambition, and we who support it fully acknowledge that it will be a difficult, generational task. No one event, and certainly not a speech, will bring it into being. But if America does not set the goal, no one will.

    This goal is made more complicated by the fact that the future of the Middle East is bound up in many of our other vital interests: energy security, nonproliferation, the defense of friends and allies, the resolution of old conflicts, and, most of all, the need for near-term partners in the global struggle against violent Islamist extremism. To state, however, that we must promote either our security interests or our democratic ideals is to present a false choice. Admittedly, our interests and our ideals do come into tension at times in the short term. America is not an NGO and must balance myriad factors in our relations with all countries. But in the long term, our security is best ensured by the success of our ideals: freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law.

    The leaders and citizens of the broader Middle East are now searching for answers to the fundamental questions of modern state building: What are to be the limits on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders? What will be the role of the state in the lives of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics? How will traditional values and mores be reconciled with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls? How is religious and ethnic diversity to be accommodated in fragile political institutions when people tend to hold on to traditional associations? The answers to these and other questions can come only from within the Middle East itself. The task for us is to support and shape these difficult processes of change and to help the nations of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states.

    The first challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, as embodied by groups, such as al Qaeda, that thoroughly reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial structure of the ancient caliphate. To resist this threat, the United States will need friends and allies in the region who are willing and able to take action against the terrorists among them. Ultimately, however, this is more than just a struggle of arms; it is a contest of ideas. Al Qaeda's theory of victory is to hijack the legitimate local and national grievances of Muslim societies and twist them into an ideological narrative of endless struggle against Western, especially U.S., oppression. The good news is that al Qaeda's intolerant ideology can be enforced only through brutality and violence. When people are free to choose, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq's Anbar Province, they reject al Qaeda's ideology and rebel against its control. Our theory of victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully -- to develop their talents, to redress injustices, and to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency: the center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the societies they are trying to radicalize.

    Admittedly, our interests in both promoting democratic development and fighting terrorism and extremism lead to some hard choices, because we do need capable friends in the broader Middle East who can root out terrorists now. These states are often not democratic, so we must balance the tensions between our short-term and our long-term goals. We cannot deny nondemocratic states the security assistance to fight terrorism or defend themselves. At the same time, we must use other points of leverage to promote democracy and hold our friends to account. That means supporting civil society, as we have done through the Forum for the Future and the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and using public and private diplomacy to push our nondemocratic partners to reform. Changes are slowly coming in terms of universal suffrage, more influential parliaments, and education for girls and women. We must continue to advocate for reform and support indigenous agents of change in nondemocratic countries, even as we cooperate with their governments on security.

    An example of how our administration has balanced these concerns is our relationship with Pakistan. Following years of U.S. neglect of that relationship, our administration had to establish a partnership with Pakistan's military government to achieve a common goal after September 11. We did so knowing that our security and that of Pakistan ultimately required a return to civilian and democratic rule. So even as we worked with President Pervez Musharraf to fight terrorists and extremists, we invested more than $3 billion to strengthen Pakistani society -- building schools and health clinics, providing emergency relief after the 2005 earthquake, and supporting political parties and the rule of law. We urged Pakistan's military leaders to put their country on a modern and moderate trajectory, which in some important respects they did. And when this progress was threatened last year by the declaration of emergency rule, we pushed President Musharraf hard to take off his uniform and hold free elections. Although terrorists tried to thwart the return of democracy and tragically killed many innocent people, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani people dealt extremism a crushing defeat at the polls. This restoration of democracy in Pakistan creates an opportunity for us to build the lasting and broad-based partnership that we have never achieved with this nation, thereby enhancing our security and anchoring the success of our values in a troubled region.

    A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence -- assassination, intimidation, terrorism. The question is not whether any particular state should have influence in the region. They all do, and will. The real question is, What kind of influence will these states wield -- and to what ends, constructive or destructive? It is this fundamental and still unresolved question that is at the center of many of the geopolitical challenges in the Middle East today -- whether it is Syria's undermining of Lebanon's sovereignty, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability, or both states' support for terrorism.

    Iran poses a particular challenge. The Iranian regime pursues its disruptive policies both through state instruments, such as the Revolutionary Guards and the al Quds force, and through nonstate proxies that extend Iranian power, such as elements of the Mahdi Army in Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world. The Iranian regime seeks to subvert states and extend its influence throughout the Persian Gulf region and the broader Middle East. It threatens the state of Israel with extinction and holds implacable hostility toward the United States. And it is destabilizing Iraq, endangering U.S. forces, and killing innocent Iraqis. The United States is responding to these provocations. Clearly, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or even the technology to build one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security.

    But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression. The Iranian people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities. Indeed, the United States has reached out to them with exchanges of sports teams, disaster-relief workers, and artists. By many accounts, the Iranian people are favorably disposed to Americans and to the United States. Our relationship could be different. Should the Iranian government honor the UN Security Council's demands and suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities, the community of nations, including the United States, is prepared to discuss the full range of issues before us. The United States has no permanent enemies.

    Ultimately, the many threats that Iran poses must be seen in a broader context: that of a state fundamentally out of step with the norms and values of the international community. Iran must make a strategic choice -- a choice that we have sought to clarify with our approach -- about how and to what ends it will wield its power and influence: Does it want to continue thwarting the legitimate demands of the world, advancing its interests through violence, and deepening the isolation of its people? Or is it open to a better relationship, one of growing trade and exchange, deepening integration, and peaceful cooperation with its neighbors and the broader international community? Tehran should know that changes in its behavior would meet with changes in ours. But Iran should also know that the United States will defend its friends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.

    A third challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly that between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our administration has put the idea of democratic development at the center of our approach to this conflict, because we came to believe that the Israelis will not achieve the security they deserve in their Jewish state and the Palestinians will not achieve the better life they deserve in a state of their own until there is a Palestinian government capable of exercising its sovereign responsibilities, both to its citizens and to its neighbors. Ultimately, a Palestinian state must be created that can live side by side with Israel in peace and security. This state will be born not just through negotiations to resolve hard issues related to borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem but also through the difficult effort to build effective democratic institutions that can fight terrorism and extremism, enforce the rule of law, combat corruption, and create opportunities for the Palestinians to improve their lives. This confers responsibilities on both parties.

    As the experience of the past several years has shown, there is a fundamental disagreement at the heart of Palestinian society -- between those who reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and those who do not. The Palestinian people must ultimately make a choice about which future they desire, and it is only democracy that gives them that choice and holds open the possibility of a peaceful way forward to resolve the existential question at the heart of their national life. The United States, Israel, other states in the region, and the international community must do everything in their power to support those Palestinians who would choose a future of peace and compromise. When the two-state solution is finally realized, it will be because of democracy, not despite it.

    This is, indeed, a controversial view, and it speaks to one more challenge that must be resolved if democratic and modern states are to emerge in the broader Middle East: how to deal with nonstate groups whose commitment to democracy, nonviolence, and the rule of law is suspect. Because of the long history of authoritarianism in the region, many of the best-organized political parties are Islamist, and some of them have not renounced violence used in the service of political goals. What should be their role in the democratic process? Will they take power democratically only to subvert the very process that brought them victory? Are elections in the broader Middle East therefore dangerous?

    These questions are not easy. When Hamas won elections in the Palestinian territories, it was widely seen as a failure of policy. But although this victory most certainly complicated affairs in the broader Middle East, in another way it helped to clarify matters. Hamas had significant power before those elections -- largely the power to destroy. After the elections, Hamas also had to face real accountability for its use of power for the first time. This has enabled the Palestinian people, and the international community, to hold Hamas to the same basic standards of responsibility to which all governments should be held. Through its continued unwillingness to behave like a responsible regime rather than a violent movement, Hamas has demonstrated that it is wholly incapable of governing.

    Much attention has been focused on Gaza, which Hamas holds hostage to its incompetent and brutal policies. But in other places, the Palestinians have held Hamas accountable. In the West Bank city of Qalqilya, for instance, where Hamas was elected in 2004, frustrated and fed-up Palestinians voted it out of office in the next election. If there can be a legitimate, effective, and democratic alternative to Hamas (something that Fatah has not yet been), people will likely choose it. This would especially be true if the Palestinians could live a normal life within their own state.

    The participation of armed groups in elections is problematic. But the lesson is not that there should not be elections. Rather, there should be standards, like the ones to which the international community has held Hamas after the fact: you can be a terrorist group or you can be a political party, but you cannot be both. As difficult as this problem is, it cannot be the case that people are denied the right to vote just because the outcome might be unpleasant to us. Although we cannot know whether politics will ultimately deradicalize violent groups, we do know that excluding them from the political process grants them power without responsibility. This is yet another challenge that the leaders and the peoples of the broader Middle East must resolve as the region turns to democratic processes and institutions to resolve differences peacefully and without repression.

    THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRAQ

    Then, of course, there is Iraq, which is perhaps the toughest test of the proposition that democracy can overcome deep divisions and differences. Because Iraq is a microcosm of the region, with its layers of ethnic and sectarian diversity, the Iraqi people's struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape not just of Iraq but of the broader Middle East as well.

    The cost of this war, in lives and treasure, for Americans and Iraqis, has been greater than we ever imagined. This story is still being written, and will be for many years to come. Sanctions and weapons inspections, prewar intelligence and diplomacy, troop levels and postwar planning -- these are all important issues that historians will analyze for decades. But the fundamental question that we can ask and debate now is, Was removing Saddam from power the right decision? I continue to believe that it was.

    After we fought one war against Saddam and then remained in a formal state of hostilities with him for over a decade, our containment policy began to erode. The community of nations was losing its will to enforce containment, and Iraq's ruler was getting increasingly good at exploiting it through programs such as oil-for-food -- indeed, more than we knew at the time. The failure of containment was increasingly evident in the UN Security Council resolutions that were passed and then violated, in our regular clashes in the no-fly zones, and in President Bill Clinton's decision to launch air strikes in 1998 and then join with Congress to make "regime change" our government's official policy in Iraq. If Saddam was not a threat, why did the community of nations keep the Iraqi people under the most brutal sanctions in modern history? In fact, as the Iraq Survey Group showed, Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated.

    The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe.

    The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East were thus linked. So, too, was the war on terror linked to Iraq, because our goal after September 11 was to address the deeper malignancies of the Middle East, not just the symptoms of them. It is very hard to imagine how a more just and democratic Middle East could ever have emerged with Saddam still at the center of the region.

    Our effort in Iraq has been extremely arduous. Iraq was a broken state and a broken society under Saddam. We have made mistakes. That is undeniable. The explosion to the surface of long-suppressed grievances has challenged fragile, young democratic institutions. But there is no other decent and peaceful way for the Iraqis to reconcile.

    As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of its transformation is being felt in the rest of the region. Ultimately, the states of the Middle East need to reform. But they need to reform their relations, too. A strategic realignment is unfolding in the broader Middle East, separating those states that are responsible and accept that the time for violence under the rubric of "resistance" has passed and those that continue to fuel extremism, terrorism, and chaos. Support for moderate Palestinians and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for democratic leaders and citizens in Lebanon have focused the energies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the states of the Persian Gulf. They must come to see that a democratic Iraq can be an ally in resisting extremism in the region. When they invited Iraq to join the ranks of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Plus-Two (Egypt and Jordan), they took an important step in that direction.

    At the same time, these countries look to the United States to stay deeply involved in their troubled region and to counter and deter threats from Iran. The United States now has the weight of its effort very much in the center of the broader Middle East. Our long-term partnerships with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia, and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead of helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.

    A UNIQUELY AMERICAN REALISM

    Investing in strong and rising powers as stakeholders in the international order and supporting the democratic development of weak and poorly governed states -- these broad goals for U.S. foreign policy are certainly ambitious, and they raise an obvious question: Is the United States up to the challenge, or, as some fear and assert these days, is the United States a nation in decline?

    We should be confident that the foundation of American power is and will remain strong -- for its source is the dynamism, vigor, and resilience of American society. The United States still possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race, religion, and culture into the fabric of our national and economic life. The same values that lead to success in the United States also lead to success in the world: industriousness, innovation, entrepreneurialism. All of these positive habits, and more, are reinforced by our system of education, which leads the world in teaching children not what to think but how to think -- how to address problems critically and solve them creatively.

    Indeed, one challenge to the national interest is to make certain that we can provide quality education to all, especially disadvantaged children. The American ideal is one of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. This is the glue that holds together our multiethnic democracy. If we ever stop believing that what matters is not where you came from but where you are going, we will most certainly lose confidence. And an unconfident America cannot lead. We will turn inward. We will see economic competition, foreign trade and investment, and the complicated world beyond our shores not as challenges to which our nation can rise but as threats that we should avoid. That is why access to education is a critical national security issue.

    We should also be confident that the foundations of the United States' economic power are strong, and will remain so. Even amid financial turbulence and international crises, the U.S. economy has grown more and faster since 2001 than the economy of any other leading industrial nation. The United States remains unquestionably the engine of global economic growth. To remain so, we must find new, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly sources of energy. The industries of the future are in the high-tech fields (including in clean energy), which our nation has led for years and in which we remain on the global cutting edge. Other nations are indeed experiencing amazing and welcome economic growth, but the United States will likely account for the largest share of global GDP for decades to come.

    Even in our government institutions of national security, the foundations of U.S. power are stronger than many assume. Despite our waging two wars and rising to defend ourselves in a new global confrontation, U.S. defense spending today as a percentage of GDP is still well below the average during the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have indeed put an enormous strain on our military, and President Bush has proposed to Congress an expansion of our force by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. The experience of recent years has tested our armed forces, but it has also prepared a new generation of military leaders for stabilization and counterinsurgency missions, of which we will likely face more. This experience has also reinforced the urgent need for a new kind of partnership between our military and civilian institutions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the provincial reconstruction teams that we deploy in Afghanistan and Iraq are a model of civil-military cooperation for the future.

    In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008, it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come. But it should not be the U.S. military that has to do it. Nor should it be a mission that we take up only after states fail. Rather, civilian institutions such as the new Civilian Response Corps must lead diplomats and development workers in a whole-of-government approach to our national security challenges. We must help weak and poorly functioning states strengthen and reform themselves and thereby prevent their failure in the first place. This will require the transformation and better integration of the United States' institutions of hard power and soft power -- a difficult task and one that our administration has begun. Since 2001, the president has requested and Congress has approved a nearly 54 percent increase in funding for our institutions of diplomacy and development. And this year, the president and I asked Congress to create 1,100 new positions for the State Department and 300 new positions for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Those who follow us must build on this foundation.

    Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will. We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. There have been times in the past eight years when we have had to do new and difficult things -- things that, at times, have tested the resolve and the patience of the American people. Our actions have not always been popular, or even well understood. The exigencies of September 12 and beyond may now seem very far away. But the actions of the United States will for many, many years be driven by the knowledge that we are in an unfair fight: we need to be right one hundred percent of the time; the terrorists, only once. Yet I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too.

    Ultimately, however, what will most determine whether the United States can succeed in the twenty-first century is our imagination. It is this feature of the American character that most accounts for our unique role in the world, and it stems from the way that we think about our power and our values. The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States, because we do not really accept that our national interest and our universal ideals are at odds. For our nation, it has always been a matter of perspective. Even when our interests and ideals come into tension in the short run, we believe that in the long run they are indivisible.

    This has freed America to imagine that the world can always be better -- not perfect, but better -- than others have consistently thought possible. America imagined that a democratic Germany might one day be the anchor of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. America believed that a democratic Japan might one day be a source of peace in an increasingly free and prosperous Asia. America kept faith with the people of the Baltics that they would be independent and thus brought the day when NATO held a summit in Riga, Latvia. To realize these and other ambitious goals that we have imagined, America has often preferred preponderances of power that favor our values over balances of power that do not. We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless to change the world. Indeed, we have shown that by marrying American power and American values, we could help friends and allies expand the boundaries of what most thought realistic at the time.

    How to describe this disposition of ours? It is realism, of a sort. But it is more than that -- what I have called our uniquely American realism. This makes us an incredibly impatient nation. We live in the future, not the past. We do not linger over our own history. This has led our nation to make mistakes in the past, and we will surely make more in the future. Still, it is our impatience to improve less-than-ideal situations and to accelerate the pace of change that leads to our most enduring achievements, at home and abroad.

    At the same time, ironically, our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We understand how long and trying the course of democracy is. We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to three-fifths of a man. Yet we are healing old wounds and living as one American people, and this shapes our engagement with the world. We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect. This gives us reason to be humble in our own endeavors and patient with the endeavors of others. We know that today's headlines are rarely the same as history's judgments.

    An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome. Indeed, we already see glimpses of this better world. We see it in Kuwaiti women gaining the right to vote, in a provincial council meeting in Kirkuk, and in the improbable sight of the American president standing with democratically elected leaders in front of the flags of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the future state of Palestine. Shaping that world will be the work of a generation, but we have done such work before. And if we remain confident in the power of our values, we can succeed in such work again.

    [Mar 18, 2015] Russia withdrew from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty

    marknesop , March 17, 2015 at 11:57 am
    Most here will be aware that Russia withdrew from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, effective about a week ago. But I wonder how many were aware of the lopsided balance of forces Russia was expected to accept in order to ratify the treaty.

    "When Russia ratified the adapted CFE Treaty, the agreement's weapons limit for NATO was three times that established for the Russian army. However, NATO required the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistria as a condition for the ratification of the treaty.

    "NATO countries were not in a hurry to ratify the adapted treaty," Alexei Arbatov said. "Although Russia had withdrawn almost all its troops, there remained some absolutely insignificant contingents and objects. The West sought to pursue its line. On the part of NATO, I think it was extremely short-sighted, it was a big mistake."

    In Arbatov's view, this decision by NATO was what "finished off" conventional arms control in Europe."

    So for Russia, it now no longer recognizes a balance of forces or limit on conventional arms it may deploy in reaction to what it considers NATO provocations. The temperature looks to be steadily rising.

    et Al, March 17, 2015 at 2:07 pm
    I advocated this as an option quite some time ago. The time is judged right by the Kremlin to do so. But, even the US has foreseen this:

    There was a very interesting article (which of course I cannot now find) from a day or two ago outlining the US military's response to the end of the CFE treaty. The underlining point was that the US could do quite a number of things that could make it more militarily threatening to Russia without breaching any CFE commitmets.

    Here's a few mil related stuff that is intersting:

    New Radars, IRST Strengthen Stealth-Detection Claims

    http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-detection-claims

    Counterstealth technologies near service worldwide

    Counterstealth technologies, intended to reduce the effectiveness of radar cross-section (RCS) reduction measures, are proliferating worldwide. Since 2013, multiple new programs have been revealed, producers of radar and infrared search and track (IRST) systems have been more ready to claim counterstealth capability, and some operators-notably the U.S. Navy-have openly conceded that stealth technology is being challenged.

    These new systems are designed from the outset for sensor fusion-when different sensors detect and track the same target, the track and identification data are merged automatically. This is intended to overcome a critical problem in engaging stealth targets: Even if the target is detected, the "kill chain" by which a target is tracked, identified and engaged by a weapon can still be broken if any sensor in the chain cannot pick the target up….
    ####

    I think the point is that stealth has its place, but given the nature of 30 operational lives of aircraft, they are not going to keep their advantage for long. If you follow the tech news, the world is going through a sensor revolution. Price has massively dropped, capabilities have grown hugely, efficiency has significantly increase, its just the case of tying all the data together to make use of it 'data fusion' as they say in the article above. My camera has gps. In the pet shop I've seen gps cat collars not to mention video collars that can record all day or be set by sensor motion. It's only going to get better, cheaper and smaller and continue to reach the consumer in ever more imaginative ways.

    Another 'gift' from the Ukraine, except this time to I-ran (the other I mentioned in a previous post of Su-33 naval prototype sold to China that ended up as the J-11B copy no to mention the copies Su-27SKs):

    AW&ST: Iran Produces First Long-Range Missile

    http://aviationweek.com/defense/iran-produces-first-long-range-missile

    TEL-AVIV - Iran has unveiled a domestically produced long-range land attack cruise missile, dubbed Soumar.

    Based on the Russian Kh-55, the Soumar is believed to have a range of at least 2,000 km. "This missile represents a significant leap in the Middle East arms race," says Col. Aviram Hasson of Israel's Missile Defense Organization.

    "It positions Iran among the world's leaders in missile technology," a Western intelligence source adds….

    …Iran secretly received the missiles in the first half of 2001 and began reverse engineering work. But unlike its publicly displayed ballistic missile program, Iran did not admit to having a cruise missile program until 2012. …
    ###

    It's old, subsonic tech, but adds another arrow to the quiver that needs to be countered. Nor does it have a nuke warhead.

    Defense Update: France to invest €330 million upgrading 218 Leclerc Main Battle Tanks

    http://defense-update.com/20150312_leclerc-2.html

    The planned modernization work will enable Leclerc MBTs to employ its heavy, direct firepower and mobility as part of the future "SCORPION" joint tactical groups (GTIA). The contract provides for the delivery of 200 "upgraded Leclerc" tanks and 18 "Renovated DCL" recovery vehicles from 2020….
    ####

    Yup, from 2020. That's a lot of money for an extra reverse gear!

    kirill, March 17, 2015 at 2:41 pm
    "Even if the target is detected, the "kill chain" by which a target is tracked, identified and engaged by a weapon can still be broken if any sensor in the chain cannot pick the target up"

    Total rubbish claim. It perhaps could be true if the "sensor fusion" system consisted of a couple of obsolete radars, but it would not be true for a system consisting of three or more obsolete radars. American idiots ripped off the stealth concept and mathematics from the Soviets and now prance around like they dictate physical reality. American idiots will not see what hit them when people with actual appreciation and skill in physics and mathematics will face their toys.

    [Mar 18, 2015] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31921011

    bbc.co.uk

    Warren , March 17, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    France and Germany join UK in Asia bank membership

    France and Germany are to join the UK in becoming members of a Chinese-led Asian development bank.

    The finance ministries of both countries confirmed on Tuesday that they would be applying for membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

    Last week, the US issued a rare rebuke to the UK over its decision to become a member of the AIIB.

    The US considers the AIIB a rival to the Western-dominated World Bank.

    The UK was the first Western economy to apply for membership of the bank.

    But German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble confirmed on Tuesday that his country would also be applying for membership.

    France's finance ministry confirmed it would be joining the bank. It is believed Italy also intends to join.

    The US has questioned the governance standards at the new institution, which is seen as spreading Chinese "soft power".

    The AIIB, which was created in October by 21 countries, led by China, will fund Asian energy, transport and infrastructure projects.

    When asked about the US rebuke last week, a spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron said: "There will be times when we take a different approach."

    The UK insisted it would insist on the bank's adherence to strict banking and oversight procedures.

    "We think that it's in the UK's national interest," Mr Cameron's spokesperson added.

    'Not normal'

    Last week, Pippa Malmgren, a former economic adviser to US President George W Bush, told the BBC that the public chastisement from the US indicates the move might have come as a surprise.

    "It's not normal for the United States to be publicly scolding the British," she said, adding that the US's focus on domestic affairs at the moment could have led to the oversight.

    However, Mr Cameron's spokesperson said UK Chancellor George Osborne did discuss the measure with his US counterpart before announcing the move.

    Some 21 nations came together last year to sign a memorandum for the bank's establishment, including Singapore, India and Thailand.

    But in November last year, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott offered lukewarm support to the AIIB and said its actions must be transparent.

    US President Barack Obama, who met Mr Abbott on the sidelines of a Beijing summit last year, agreed the bank had to be transparent, accountable and truly multilateral.

    "Those are the same rules by which the World Bank or IMF [International Monetary Fund] or Asian Development Bank or any other international institution needs to abide by," Mr Obama said at the time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31921011

    marknesop , March 17, 2015 at 3:11 pm
    The USA's grip on Europe, against all odds, is loosening. Who would have thought it would be over money, considering it went meekly along hand-in-hand with Washington in imposing sanctions which had an immediate and deleterious effect on its bottom line? I mean, isn't that money, too?

    "The UK insisted it would insist on the bank's adherence to strict banking and oversight procedures. 'We think that it's in the UK's national interest,' Mr Cameron's spokesperson added." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…Oh, 'pon my word, yes, m'lud. The UK would be everyone's first choice to monitor strict adherence to banking and oversight procedures, after the £2.7 Billion in fines handed the Bank of England for currency rigging – which also resulted in the dismissal of its senior foreign exchange dealer – just a few months ago. Or the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) scam, in which banks greedy for more profit conspired to rig the deck so that insurance which cost more and more stood less and less chance of ever having a successful claim levied against it. And let's not even mention Libor.

    I don't think there's too much about crooked banking the Chinese will be able to teach the British.

    james, March 17, 2015 at 3:59 pm
    there is a straight line that runs from the boe to the federal reserve… moon of alabama has a post up discussing some of the changes afloat which can be read here –

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/03/the-end-of-the-us-dominated-international-money-system.html#comments

    davidt, March 17, 2015 at 3:14 pm
    My favorite Czech, Vlad Sobell, has an new article "The opportunity cost of America's disastrous foreign policy", which most of us here would agree with:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/17/4594

    He reminds us what could have been if Putin's vision for creating a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok had been realized. (George Friedman has already explained why this could not be allowed.)
    I don't think that anyone has mentioned an earlier article by Sobell that appeared as his contribution on the experts' panel on us-russia.org, His is the last contribution.

    http://us-russia.org/2982-why-the-minsk-2-settlement-of-the-ukrainian-crisis-will-hold.html

    If there were an award for clear thinking then Sobell would have to be a prime candidate.

    kat kan , March 17, 2015 at 5:14 pm
    Only problem is, this was written in February. And without regard for Poroshenko.

    The weapons withdrawals were more or less done. Nothing else was. The Special Status law proposal was based on September lines and not discussed with the Republics so is unacceptable to them. Not only was there no improvement of humanitarian access, but it has been tightened up, to the extent that virtually no medicines are getting through, and no food at all. Travel to and from the Republics involves permits that take 3 weeks to get. The gas got cut off once. No social payments have been made and no wages back-paid. All this is in Minsk2 and Kiev's actually gone backwards on these clauses.

    The reality is, Minsk2 will not succeed, because Kiev (and their masters) don't want it to. Poroshenko is carrying in like he can set conditions, as if HE HAD WON when in fact HE LOST.

    davidt , March 17, 2015 at 6:17 pm
    From memory, I think that Sobell would agree with your penultimate sentence- I don't think that he was very optimistic about Minsk2. (On the positive side, the gap between Europe and the US seems to have hardened.)

    [Mar 18, 2015] The 'Opportunity Cost' of America's Disastrous Foreign Policy by Vlad Sobell

    Mar 18, 2015 | Russia Insider

    Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy

    The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability instead of war and chaos.

    Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.

    Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming the ongoing global economic depression.

    All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?

    European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy

    In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.

    Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.

    This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy, the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment industry.

    Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.

    America, too, is a loser

    But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The "democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?

    Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.

    The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it

    US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom (as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.

    Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.

    Vlad Sobell teaches political economy in Prague and Berlin
    Europeans Look On as US Sows Discord on the Continent
    Wed, Nov 2

    Tom Welsh

    What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent. Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will - behave in that way?

    'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.

    - Paul Craig Roberts

    jabirujoe

    "Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".

    Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does

    Toddrich

    "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it."
    -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]

    "When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away."

    -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]

    The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.

    Is Putin ill? 'Everything is fine' despite cancelled meetings and old photos

    Looks like Putin has a fly by Guardian things otherwise ;-). I just love the twisted Guardianista thinking that we get on here from time to time....
    The Guardian

    BradBenson -> 14 Mar 2015 10:15

    Well young man, I only talk down to clowns. If you had something reasonable to say in your original comment, you might have avoided being patronized. You reap what you sow.

    The US is no better or worse than the Russia. You get zero news on our TV Media except that which 'unnamed government sources' claim. How is that any different than what the Russian People see? Moreover, YOU don't know what the Russians see or know and can't know it unless you are living in Russia, which you aren't.

    Right now, even as I type, the so-called 'liberal' station, MSNBC, is reporting that Putin hasn't been seen for a week, when, in fact, he was seen live and in person twice this past week and it was reported elsewhere in the European Media. But we have to keep him in the news because he's the current "evil enemy du jour" and until we can come up with some new 'outrage' committed by Putin, this is the best they can do.

    People on the 'All-Israel-all-the-Time' Station, CNN Amerika, have even gone so far as to suggest that Putin's been overthrown by hardliners bent on restoring the borders of the old USSR. Quick! Throw open the siloes. We have to take them out now before these hardliners attack poor innocent Amerika!

    At the commercial break, there will be yet another advertisement for Boeing or Northrup Grumman just to keep us in that Cold War mood until the talking heads come back on. Meanwhile, even though none of us could ever possibly buy a Boeing or Grumman product, 'liberal' MSNBC is bought off with advertising money so that they won't ever criticize the new Cold War. Nor will you ever see a negative story about Boeing or Grumman contract cost overruns, especially not during the coming war with Iran (which has no bomb vs. poor Israel, which has at least 250 bombs).

    Meantime, we are also being told that there is no mass surveillance. Of course not, it's just "bulk collection". I'm sure that you find that reassuring, but I've been around long enough to remember when this would never have been permitted--that is, of course, without a "new pearl harbor" (google it and learn something about PNAC, while you're at it).

    In a country in which:

    1. all of your communications are collected and analyzed;
    2. the regular police forces are now full-scale armed para-military units;
    3. the National Defense Authorization Act permits the President to impose martial law anywhere in the country and to actually house US Military Personnel in our homes as required;
    4. the new Patriot Act permits indefinite incarceration without habeas corpus for American Citizens; and,
    5. people are shot in the streets on a regular basis by uniformed thugs;

    you have no basis whatsoever to claim that life in Amerika is any better than it is in Putin's Russia.

    Finally, young man, I'm 64 and you can call me a "young man" any time you want. At my age, it's a compliment. In the future, should you want to discuss things, dispute something I've said or make a counter-argument to something I've said, as some do, you will be treated with respect. If all you bring is ignorance and snark, rest assured you will be patronized. After all, we have standards here in the threads and I'm not allowed to tell little punks like you to just F-off.

    sheikhoftheprairies Adabsiz1 13 Mar 2015 14:36

    The Gazprom is a sponsor of the `Echo of Moscow`, many newspapers (like `The New Izvestiya`) of the so called liberal opposition. The state-owned corp. supports the opposition! How can it be explained? The Kremlin masochism? Curioser and curioser! Wonderland! Who gonna be Alice?

    Adabsiz1 13 Mar 2015 14:29

    Amazingly, and despite Western sanctions on Russia, not to mention attacks on the person of President Putin ....
    GAZPROM, the largest Russian oil company, is the SOLE sponsors of not only the UEFA Champions League ...... but also FC Schalke 04 (a premiere German club) !!!

    (https://www.gazprom-germania.de/en/sponsorship/sports-sponsorship/fcschalke04.html)

    WOW --

    Do we speak with forked tongues ??

    Cigars -> sheikhoftheprairies 13 Mar 2015 13:27

    The Central Intelligence Agency was created to gather intelligence.

    Collecting intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate means, except that he shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions;
    Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
    Providing overall direction for and coordination of the collection of national intelligence outside the United States through human sources by elements of the Intelligence Community authorized to undertake such collection and, in coordination with other departments, agencies, or elements of the United States Government which are authorized to undertake such collection, ensuring that the most effective use is made of resources and that appropriate account is taken of the risks to the United States and those involved in such collection; and
    Performing such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the President or the Director of National

    sheikhoftheprairies -> psygone 13 Mar 2015 13:06

    CNN is a source for the masses. To be more or less informed persons need other sources of information. My choice is the Lloyd List. It writes nothing about policy, only marine industry, yet you can judge the real state of affairs in the international economy, cos maritime transportation is blood of the world`s economy. Even the FT is not very reliable for me. I prefer figures and graphs to the words.

    worried 13 Mar 2015 12:43

    "competent leaders who embraced the western world because they cared more about maximizing the prosperity of their people than stealing their national wealth"

    ....HO HO HO !!

    I just love the twisted Guardianista thinking that we get on here from time to time....NOT.

    Read all about it : ' they cared more about maximizing the prosperity of their people than stealing their national wealth" ....

    Does this win the 2015 Orwellianspeak prize of the year?


    BradBenson -> brendonn 13 Mar 2015 10:52

    Fact are facts. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Sounds to me as if you don't have the education or acquired knowledge to dispute what I said. Perhaps you should check out our standing against the rest of the world.

    Since I've traveled all of my life and lived as an expatriate in Germany for ten years, I've had the opportunity to see the differences myself. Since you've never been outside of your trailer park, let alone your state, you will have to go to the net to find out the truth.

    Make that your assignment for today young man and run along.

    HollyOldDog -> romans 13 Mar 2015 10:42

    By manning the Concentration Camps where their extreme brutality was noted by the Gestapo but the Ukrainians cowardice was evident when the Soviet forces discovered the Auschwitz Concentration camp where the Ukrainian guards discarded their uniforms and tried to hide within the prisoners. But they stood out like a sore thumb as they were overweight whereas the true prisoners were 'stick thin' and obviously starving and awaiting their place in the que for the gas chambers.

    jgbg -> huzar30 13 Mar 2015 10:29

    Strongmen always eliminate potential rivals, and surround themselves with competent sycophants.

    Yeah - the Russians could end up with someone weak, like Vladimir Zhirinovsky : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky

    Be careful what you wish for.

    (Strangely, despite giving the impression of being a complete madman, Zhirinovsky made a fairly accurate prediction on a Ukrainian TV programme in 2006, about what would happen in Ukraine if the nationalists and their far right chums in Svoboda seized power)

    Conniston -> romans 13 Mar 2015 10:27

    Romans, they sure got their revenge at the Treblinka death camp. They were Catholic Christians with a deep hatred of Jews, communists and Orthodox Christians. Just to rub it in the new prime minister was seen with the Pope only a few days after the coup in Kiev. It may be 70 years ago but they still believe in priestcraft. It's a good job they have a saviour-god who is going to forgive all the rotten things they do while on Earth.

    valeronfreza -> Daniel Simkins 13 Mar 2015 10:15

    It creates resonance. But it really stupid. He's a president, a busy guy, he has lots of things to do, which are way more important than making new photos. There are plenty of them, already, he's not a TV serial so people would wait a new portion of him every two days or so. In spite of intensions of medias to turn his life and actions into series.

    HollyOldDog -> Havingalavrov 13 Mar 2015 09:57

    It's probably due to Poroshenko asking for an emergency Asylum due to all the murders of Russian Speaking politicians in West Ukraine but the armed road blocks around Kiev are posing problems for his safe escape plan.

    samlebon23 13 Mar 2015 09:55

    The Cancer Inducing Agency is hard at work.

    StatusFoe -> RealityCheck2014 13 Mar 2015 09:42

    He has not busy working hard with Western nations to secure a mutually beneficial reconciliation

    What was he doing in Minsk a couple of weeks ago then?

    fully integrate Russia into the global economy, promote positive and respectful relationships with foreign markets for Russia's products,

    Under Putin Russia has become a member of the WTO, the Russian Middle Class has grown enormously. Sure, the bureaucracy is still stiffling and huge reforms are still needed to promote SMEs. On the other hand, Putin has stopped the western energy corps from taking over Russia's resources in the way they do in the third world, Nigeria for example. That resistance has irked the US led western corporate cabal and thus the campaign in western MSM to demonize Putin and vilify Russia as a whole.

    Ida Barnes -> Metronome151 13 Mar 2015 09:40

    Huge dollop of whataboutery

    Whataboutery. Newspeak noun: used as a desperate attempt by people with poor reasoning skills to deflect attention from their double standards

    VladimirM -> VladimirM 13 Mar 2015 08:10

    There were two other presidents in Russia. Everybody knew and could see themselves how healthy Yeltsin was. But I can't remember a single story about Medvedev's health during his tenure.

    The youth don't remember Politburo and even Yeltsin's presidency seems to be far away. So it's a bit rich to call it 'scares' and compare it to the early 80s.

    Dr_Delaney 13 Mar 2015 08:01

    One has to understand that Mr Putin has had to defend his nation from the war of economic aggression that a minority of US-connected countries have waged on his country. I say minority because their actions are not supported by the world community - far from it indeed.

    Mr Putin is also working hard on the 2018 World Cup - which is expected to be the bes so far in the competitions history.

    Socraticus -> SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:46

    Matt Lee is one of the few journalists that consistently challenges the official government narrative and points out their hypocrisy during press briefings. The MSM need many more individuals like him.

    SHappens -> linzter 13 Mar 2015 07:31

    The US would never lie, never do such things, check Psaki's statement:

    As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means."

    The response from reporters may surprise you.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/journalist-cant-contain-his-laughter-when-white-house-spokesperson-says-the-us-has-a-long-standing-policy-against-backing-coups/

    Dr_Delaney 13 Mar 2015 07:29

    It's Nato that's empire-building, not Putin....Peter Hitchens in The Spectator magazine

    "Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding"?

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9459602/its-nato-thats-empire-building-not-putin/

    SirHenryRawlins -> tomash76 13 Mar 2015 07:16

    Crimea would have been flattened if the nationalists had invaded. Luckily the people of Crimea acted swiftly and succeeded from Ukraine. Yes, it was all illegal but lives were saved. Western liberal interventionists should have supported Russia.

    Dr_Delaney -> SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:13

    This is quite true. The western game of denegration of a whole nation has backfired on them.

    They appear NOT to have learnt from past mistakes from history: 1812 (France invaded Russia), 1914 (Germany invaded Russia) and 1942 (Germany again invaded Russia). On each occasion Russia came out stronger.


    SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:08

    "Something remarkable is taking place in Russia, and it's quite different from what we might expect. Rather than feel humiliated and depressed Russia is undergoing what I would call a kind of renaissance, a rebirth as a nation. This despite or in fact because the West, led by the so-called neo-conservatives in Washington, is trying everything including war on her doorstep in Ukraine, to collapse the Russian economy, humiliate Putin and paint Russians generally as bad. In the process, Russia is discovering positive attributes about her culture, her people, her land that had long been forgotten or suppressed."

    Read more: http://thesaker.is/russias-remarkable-renaissance/

    Putin probably needed a break to look with satisfaction at what the West has achieved so far, and that is nothing constructive for the EU.

    sheikhoftheprairies -> gewillia21 13 Mar 2015 07:03

    Chechnya`s part of the Russian Federation. It was and is. South Ossetia was saved by Russia. Georgians planned their genocide. Ukraine became a victim of the coup d'état like in LA in the 70s. Crimea? Now we see what ordeal this peninsula would undergo if not Russia`s help. Ukraine is a part of the Russian world, Russian populated universe, and therefore the EU and US are wrong when they try to trespass this thin, invisible but real red line. It is not our business. Let the Russian (Ukrainians are the Russian too) do like they can, we should not interfere with their Civil war. `Mad Vlad` is a vocabulary of hongweibings and dazibaos, as to the white overalls they won`t move their fingers until paid for their service. Who will pay them, you? Vlad won`t do it.

    Putin is a great national leader and the best friend of Chechnya, that Muslim republic. Visit Grozny (capital of the republic), it`s a fairy tale in the mountains. Putin built it anew.

    StatusFoe -> SirHenryRawlins 13 Mar 2015 06:37

    Indeed, it's very scarry. Thankfully it's been relatively very quiet in East Ukraine these last few days.... the hawks are surely not happy. And now the US establishment's official mouthpiece, tyhe Washington Post is berating the UK for not spendiing more on defence and not being sifficiently aggressive:

    In the two conflicts that most directly imperil Europe today, Britain has been largely ­invisible.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/behind-tough-british-bark-on-russia-and-islamic-state-is-very-little-bite/2015/03/12/ae63a442-c727-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html?hpid=z4

    RoyRoger -> Chirographer 13 Mar 2015 06:29

    7 political imbeciles !!.

    Obama, Kerry, Rasmusseen, Nuland, McCain, Hague & Ashton. The '' hug a, Kiev, fascist'' - lets have a coup d' etat' in a sovereign and democratic country - gang.

    And, Putin, sat back whilst the above mentioned incompetence actions dropped into Putin's and the Russian's lap - Crimea and 20% of Ukraine.

    And now the fucking political imbeciles are planning a war with Russia.

    Socraticus 13 Mar 2015 06:25

    Good lord! Do any of you anti-Putin fanatics ever once bother to investigate the claims presented in the MSM rather than take them as fact at face value?

    A simple cursory check of the Russian Presidential website would have easily dispelled the disinformation being disseminated, as it provides a listing of Putin's various meetings held over the past week and beyond (including photos taken at those meetings and links to the press releases of same).

    Further, those meetings can also be validated via the video coverage of them found on YouTube (including the Women's Day on March 8th), as well as postings made on other governmental websites that pertain to the individuals he met with. Here are just a few of those links so you can see for yourself...

    http://eng.kremlin.ru/news
    http://gov.karelia.ru/gov/index_e.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3mbtEZcio0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBVwq8Xw64

    Conniston 13 Mar 2015 06:25

    Things have become clearer following the 'Yesterday' TV programme that told the harrowing story of the death camp at Treblinka in Poland - March 10th. The guards killing the Jews were Ukrainian. Many Ukrainians joined the German army when they attacked the USSR in June 1941.

    With this in mind we can now begin to understand why the Russians are, rightly or wrongly, calling those in Kiev Nazis.

    Pateric -> GreatMountainEagle 13 Mar 2015 06:24

    Why not, if even after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya....the Westerners believe in their
    "exclusive" democracy as they, obviously, believe in the above 108-124%.

    Vladimire_Poutine 13 Mar 2015 06:23

    Where's Wally? *

    *Wally = common Anglicization of Vladimir.

    sheikhoftheprairies 13 Mar 2015 06:04

    Churchill: `Stalin took over Russia when it had just a plough and left it with nuclear weapons`.

    Putin took over Russia when it had just plights, and now Russia is a liberal, democratic, capitalist country. Its only guilt is it does not want to be anybody`s fool, victim. Putin is a real leader, not just a formal President. I wish him every success. I`d recommend politicians of other countries to follow his example for the sake of their nations.

    [Mar 16, 2015] A Green Light for the American Empire by Ron Paul

    March 14, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    The American Empire has been long in the making. A green light was given in 1990 to finalize that goal. Dramatic events occurred that year that allowed the promoters of the American Empire to cheer. It also ushered in the current 25-year war to solidify the power necessary to manage a world empire. Most people in the world now recognize this fact and assume that the empire is here to stay for a long time. That remains to be seen.

    Empires come and go. Some pop up quickly and disappear in the same manner. Others take many years to develop and sometimes many years to totally disintegrate. The old empires, like the Greek, Roman, Spanish and many others took many years to build and many years to disappear. The Soviet Empire was one that came rather quickly and dissipated swiftly after a relatively short period of time. The communist ideology took many decades to foment the agitation necessary for the people to tolerate that system.

    Since 1990 the United States has had to fight many battles to convince the world that it was the only military and economic force to contend with. Most people are now convinced and are easily intimidated by our domination worldwide with the use of military force and economic sanctions on which we generously rely. Though on the short term this seems to many, and especially for the neoconservatives, that our power cannot be challenged. What is so often forgotten is that while most countries will yield to our threats and intimidation, along the way many enemies were created.

    The seeds of the American Empire were sown early in our history. Natural resources, river transportation, and geographic location all lent itself to the development of an empire. An attitude of "Manifest Destiny" was something most Americans had no trouble accepting. Although in our early history there were those who believed in a powerful central government, with central banking and foreign intervention, these views were nothing like they are today as a consequence of many years of formalizing the power and determination necessary for us to be the policeman of the world and justify violence as a means for spreading a particular message. Many now endorse the idea that using force to spread American exceptionalism is moral and a force for good. Unfortunately history has shown that even using humanitarian rhetoric as a justification for telling others what to do has never worked.

    Our move toward empire steadily accelerated throughout the 20th century. World War I and World War II were deadly for millions of people in many countries, but in comparison the United States was essentially unscathed. Our economic power and military superiority steadily grew. Coming out of World War II we were able to dictate the terms of the new monetary system at Bretton Woods as well as the makeup of all the international organizations like NATO, the United Nations, and many others. The only thing that stood in America's way between 1945 and 1990 was the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Significant events of 1990 sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire, with United States enjoying a green light that would usher in unchallenged American superiority throughout the world.

    Various names have been given to this war in which we find ourselves and is which considered necessary to maintain the empire. Professor Michael Rozeff calls it the "Great War II" implying that the Great War I began in 1914 and ended in 1990. Others have referred to this ongoing war as "The Long War." I hope that someday we can refer to this war as the "The Last War" in that by the time this war ends the American Empire will end as well. Then the greatness of the experiment in individual liberty in our early history can be resumed and the force of arms can be replaced by persuasion and setting an example of how a free society should operate.

    There are several reasons why 1990 is a significant year in the transition of modern day empires. It was a year that signaled the end of the USSR Empire and the same year the American Empire builders felt vindicated in their efforts to assume the role of the world's sole superpower.

    On February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union met and ceded its monopoly political power over its empire. This was followed in a short period of time with the breakup of the Soviet system with 15 of the 17 republics declaring their independence from Moscow. This was not a total surprise considering the fact that the Soviets, in defeat, were forced to leave Afghanistan in February 1989. Also later that year, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell. Obviously the handwriting was on the wall for the total disintegration of the Soviet system. The fact that the Communist Party's leaders had to concede that they no longer could wield the ominous power that the Communist Party exerted for 73 years was a seminal event. None of this could have been possible without significant policy changes instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev after his assuming power as president in 1985, which included Glasnost and Perestroika-policies that permitted more political openness as well as significant economic reforms. These significant events led up to the Soviet collapse much more so than the conventional argument that it was due to Ronald Reagan's military buildup that forced the Soviets into a de facto "surrender" to the West.

    The other significant event of 1990, and not just a coincidence, was the "green light" message exchanged between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Though the details of this encounter have been debated, there is no doubt that the conclusion of it was that Saddam Hussein was convinced that the United States would not object to him using force to deal with a dispute Iraq had with Kuwait. After all, the US had just spent eight years aligning itself with him in his invasion and war with the Iranians. It seemed to him quite logical. What he didn't realize was the significance of the changes in the world powers that were ongoing at that particular time. The Soviets were on their way out and the American Empire was soon to assert its role as the lone super power. The US was anxious to demonstrate its new role.

    When one reads the communications between Washington and Iraq, it was not difficult to believe that a green light had been given to Saddam Hussein to march into Kuwait without US interference. Without this invasion, getting the American people to support a war with Iraq would have been very difficult. Before the war propaganda by the US government and the American media began, few Americans supported President Bush's plans to go to war against an ally that we assisted in its eight-year war against Iran. After several months of propaganda, attitudes changed and President Bush was able to get support from the US Congress, although he argued that that was unnecessary since he had obtained a UN resolution granting him the authority to use his military force to confront Saddam Hussein. The need for Constitutional authority was not discussed.

    US ambassador April Glaspie was rather explicit in her comments to Saddam Hussein: "we have no opinion on Arab – Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The US State Department had already told Saddam Hussein that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." It's not difficult interpreting conversations like this as being a green light for the invasion that Hussein was considering. Hussein had a list of grievances regarding the United States, but Glaspie never threatened or hinted about how Washington would react if Hussein took Kuwait. Regardless, whether it was reckless or poor diplomacy, the war commenced. Some have argued that it was deliberate in order to justify the beginning of the United States efforts in rebuilding the Middle East – a high priority for the neoconservatives. Actually whether the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was encouraged or permitted by deliberate intentions or by miscalculations, the outcome and the subsequent disaster in Iraq for the next 25 years was a result of continued bad judgment in our dealing with Iraq. That required enforcing our goals with military intervention. The obvious failure of this policy requires no debate.

    On August 1, 1990, one week after this exchange between ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq occurred. Immediately following this attack our State Department made it clear that this invasion would not stand and President Bush would lead a coalition in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, that military operation began. The forced evacuation of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was swift and violent, but the war for Iraq had just begun and continues to this day. It also ushered in the climactic struggle for America's efforts to become the official and unchallenged policeman of the world and to secure the American Empire.

    President Bush was not bashful in setting the stage for this clearly defined responsibility to assume this role since the Soviet Empire was on the wane. A very significant foreign policy speech by Bush came on September 11, 1990 entitled, "Toward a New World Order." This was a clear definition of internationalism with United States in charge in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. In this speech there was a pretense that there would be Russian and United States cooperation in making the world safe for democracy-something that our government now seems totally uninterested in. Following the speech, the New York Times reported that the American left was concerned about this new world order as being nothing more than rationalization for imperial ambitions in the middle 1980s. Obviously the geopolitics of the world had dramatically changed. The green light was given for the American hegemony.

    This arrogant assumption of power to run the world militarily and to punish or reward various countries economically would continue and accelerate, further complicating the financial condition of the United States government. Though it was easy for the United States to push Hussein back into Iraq, subsequent policy was destined to create havoc that has continued up to the present day. The sanctions and the continuous bombing of Iraq were devastating to the infrastructure of that country. As a consequence it's been estimated that over 500,000 Iraqis died in the next decade, many of them being children. Yet there are still many Americans who continue to be mystified as to why "they – Arabs and Muslims – hate us." By the end of 1991, on Christmas Day, the final blow to the Soviet system occurred. On that date Gorbachev resigned and the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time, thus officially ending the Soviet Empire. Many had hoped that there would be "a peace dividend" for us since the Cold War was officially ended. There's no reason that could not have occurred but it would have required us to reject the notion that it was our moral obligation and legal responsibility to deal with every crisis throughout the world. Nevertheless we embarked on that mission and though it continues, it is destined to end badly for our country. The ending of the Soviet Empire was a miraculous event with not one shot being fired. It was a failed system based on a deeply flawed idea and it was destined to fail. Once again this makes the point that the use of military force to mold the world is a deeply flawed policy. We must remember that ideas cannot be stopped by armies and recognize that good ideas must replace bad ones rather than resorting to constant wars.

    It should surprise no one that a policy endorsing the use of force to tell others how to live will only lead to more killing and greater economic suffering for those who engage in this effort, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Twenty five years have passed since this green light was given for the current war and there's no sign that it will soon end. So far it has only emboldened American political leaders to robustly pursue foreign interventionism with little thought to the tremendous price that is continuously paid.

    During the 1990s there was no precise war recognized. However our military presence around the world especially in the Middle East and to some degree in Africa was quite evident. Even though President George HW Bush did not march into Baghdad, war against the Iraqi people continued. In an effort to try to get the people to rebel against Saddam Hussein, overwhelming sanctions and continuous bombing were designed to get the Iraqi people to rebel and depose Hussein. That did not work. Instead it worked to continue to build hatred toward America for our involvement in the entire region.

    Our secretive influence in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation had its unintended consequences. One was that we were fighting on the side of bin Laden and we all know how that turned out. Also, in an effort to defeat communism, the CIA helped to promote radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this was helpful in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This most likely is not true since communism was doomed to fail anyway, and the cost to us by encouraging radical Islam has come back to haunt us.

    It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare. When Madeleine Albright was asked about this on national TV she did not deny it and said that that was a price that had to be paid. And then they wonder why there is so much resentment coming from these countries directed toward United States. Then George Bush Junior invaded Iraq, his justification all based on lies, and another 500,000 Iraqis died. The total deaths have been estimated to represent four percent of the Iraqi population. The green light that was turned on for the Persian Gulf War in 1990 stayed lit and even today the proponents of these totally failed wars claim that the only problem is we didn't send enough troops and we didn't stay long enough. And now it's argued that it's time to send ground troops back in. This is the message that we get from the neoconservatives determined that only armed might can bring peace to the world and that the cost to us financially is not a problem. The proponents never seem to be concerned about the loss of civil liberties, which has continued ever since the declaration of the Global War on Terrorism. And a good case can be made that our national security not only has not been helped, but has been diminished with these years of folly.

    And the true believers in empire never pause. After all the chaos that the US government precipitated in Iraq, conditions continue to deteriorate and now there is strong talk about putting troops on the ground once again. More than 10,000 troops still remain in Afghanistan and conditions there are precarious. Yemen is a mess as is also Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine - all countries in which we have illegally and irresponsibly engaged ourselves.

    Today the debate in Congress is whether or not to give the President additional authority to use military force. He asked to be able to use military force anyplace anytime around the world without further congressional approval. This is hardly what the Founders intended for how we dealt with going to war with other nations. Some have argued, for Constitutional reasons, that we should declare war against ISIS. That will prove to be difficult since exactly who they are and where they are located and how many there are is unknown. We do know it is estimated that there are around 30,000 members. And yet in the surrounding countries, where the fighting is going on and we are directly involved, millions of Muslims have chosen not to stand up to the ruthless behavior of the ISIS members.

    Since declaring war against ISIS makes no more sense than declaring war against "terrorism," which is a tactic, it won't work. Even at the height of the Cold War, in a time of great danger to the entire world, nobody suggested we declare war against "communism." Islamist extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be, they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world endorse. But what we must do immediately is to stop providing the incentive for the radicals to recruit new members and prevent American weapons from ending up in the hands of the enemy as a consequence of our failed policies. The incentives of the military-industrial complex along with the philosophy of neoconservatism that pushes us to be in more than 150 countries, must be exposed and refuted. Occupation by a foreign country precipitates hatred and can never be made acceptable by flowery words about their need for American-style "democracy." People who are occupied are always aware of the selfish motivation of the occupiers.

    The announcement by President George HW Bush on September 11, 1990 about the new world order was well received. Prior to that time it was only the "conspiracy theorists" who constantly talked about and speculated about the New World Order. Neoconservative ideas had been around for a long time. They were endorsed by many presidents and in particular Woodrow Wilson with his goal of spreading American goodness and making the "world safe for democracy" – none of which can be achieved by promoting war. In the 1990s the modern day neoconservatives, led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, enjoyed their growing influence on America's foreign policy. Specifically, in 1997 they established the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for the specific purpose of promoting an aggressive foreign policy of interventionism designed to promote the American Empire. This policy of intervention was to be presented with "moral clarity." "Clarity" it was, but "moral" is another question. Their goal was to provide a vision and resolve, "to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interest."

    It was not a surprise that admittedly the number one goal for the New World order was to significantly increase military spending and to be prepared to challenge any regime hostile to America's interests. They argued that America had to accept its unique role as the sole superpower for extending international order as long as it served America's interests. Although neoconservatives are thought to have greater influence within the Republican Party, their views have been implemented by the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. First on PNAC's agenda was to continue the policy designed to undermine Saddam Hussein with the goal of eventually invading Iraq – once they had an event that would galvanize public support for it. Many individuals signed letters as well as the statement of principles and most were identified as Republicans. Interestingly enough, the fourth person on the list of signatories for the statement of principles was Jeb Bush, just as he was planning his first run for governor of Florida. The neoconservatives have been firmly placed in a position of influence in directing America's foreign policy. Though we hear some debate between the two political parties over when and whom to strike, our position of world policeman is accepted by both. Though the rhetoric is different between the two parties, power always remains in the hands of those who believe in promoting the empire.

    The American Empire has arrived, but there's no indication that smooth sailing is ahead. Many questions remain. Will the American people continue to support it? Will the American taxpayer be able to afford it? Will those on the receiving end of our authority tolerate it? All empires eventually end. It's only a matter of time. Since all empires exist at the expense of personal liberty the sooner the American Empire ends the better it will be for those who still strive to keep America a bastion for personal liberty. That is possible, but it won't be achieved gracefully.

    Though the people have a say in the matter, they have to contend with the political and financial power that controls the government and media propaganda. The powerful special interests, who depend on privileges that come from the government, will do whatever is necessary to intimidate the people into believing that it's in their best interest to prop up a system that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The nature of fiat money and the privileges provided to the special interests by the Federal Reserve makes it a difficult struggle, but it's something that can be won. Unfortunately there will be economic chaos, more attacks on our civil liberties, and many unfortunate consequences coming from our unwise and dangerous foreign policy of interventionism.

    Since all empires serve the interests of a privileged class, the people who suffer will constantly challenge their existence. The more powerful the empire, the greater is the need for the government to hold it together by propaganda and lies. Truth is the greatest enemy of an abusive empire. Since those in charge are determined to maintain their power, truth is seen as being treasonous. Whistleblowers and truth tellers are seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. This is why as our empire has grown there have been more attacks on those who challenge the conventional wisdom of the propagandists. We have seen it with the current administration in that the president has used the Espionage Act to curtail freedom of the press more than any other recent president. Fortunately we live in an age where information is much more available than when it was controlled by a combination of our government and the three major networks. Nevertheless it's an uphill struggle to convince the people that it is in their best interests to give up on the concept of empire, foreign interventionism, allowing the special interests to dictate foreign policy, and paying the bills with the inflation of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve. The laws of economics, in time, will bring such a system to an end but it would be nice if it would be ended sooner through logic and persuasion.

    If it's conceded that there was a dramatic change with the green light given by April Glaspie and President Bush in 1990, along with the collapse, almost simultaneously, of the Soviet system, the only question remains is when and who will turn on the red light to end this 25 year war. Sometime it's easier to establish an empire than it is to maintain and pay for it. That is what our current political leaders are in the business of currently doing and it's not going well. It appears that a comparatively small but ruthless non-government entity, ISIS, is playing havoc with our political leaders as well as nearly all the countries in the Middle East. Because there is no clear understanding of what radical Islam is all about -since it is not much about Islam itself - our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere will continue to drain our resources and incite millions more to join those who are resisting our occupations and sanctions. The day will come when we will be forced to give up our role as world policeman and resort to using a little common sense and come home.

    This will only occur when the American people realize that our presence around the world and the maintenance of our empire has nothing to do with defending our Constitution, preserving our liberties, or fulfilling some imaginary obligation on our part to use force to spread American exceptionalism. A thorough look at our economic conditions, our pending bankruptcy, our veterans hospitals, and how we're viewed in the world by most other nations, will compel Americans to see things differently and insist that we bring our troops home – the sooner the better.

    Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world. If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial, it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it's difficult to argue against it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American people in this effort won't work and should be avoided. If one understands what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part, a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States - as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.

    How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.


    Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    Related

    [Mar 15, 2015] British security services recruit Russian-language speakers again

    Mar 15, 2015 | The Guardian

    robertinjapan -> ErnestfromClapham 14 Mar 2015 11:14

    Funny you mention that, that bloke you shared an apartment with, did he play up front for Tranmere Rovers, occasionally head the ball in? Anyway I've heard he's operating out of Stamford Bridge these days helping logistics for hotel bookings when Chelsea play away ties in Europe. Rumour round the camp fire has it he got a promotion recently for his efforts in securing excellent booking rates for Chelsea fans in the Clichy-sous-Bois region of Paris. Now to section where you state:

    "We were all rather pleased about the end of the Cold War and it is a crime that it is being restarted over a bit of local trouble in the far corner of Ukraine"

    What makes you think the cold war ever ended? What peace treaty was signed? What new arrangements were agreed upon? Finally, if Russia agreed to the unification of Germany and essentially the rearming of a nation that twice in the twentieth century came close to obliterating Russia. What concessions did the West concede in this so called ending of the cold war?

    grubbedout -> HollyOldDog 15 Mar 2015 14:08

    Starting pay?

    Civil Servant pay isn't all that great, plus the new 'Alpha' pension scheme has all the credibility of supermarket fuel vouchers.

    Me109BfG6 -> Botswana61 15 Mar 2015 00:06

    These lands have traditionally been Russian with the Russian majority of the whole population.
    Now, what would you say if in Germany the Bavarian dialect should be forced as the only 'state language' instead of the standard German? Quite resembling the situation in the Baltics, where they have forced their aborigine languages while prohibiting the Russian: Less science, less culture, less medic, etc,


    Alexandra_Aleshina 14 Mar 2015 04:11

    "Russia's "aggressive behaviour" posed a significant threat to the UK"
    How Russian "aggressive behavior" poses a threat to the UK, please tell me?
    And what is the "Russian aggressive behavior"? Let's only leave aside, these absurd stories about Russian invasion of Ukraine. This lie has already made me pretty tired.


    ambivabloke 14 Mar 2015 00:44

    I started my Russian language degree in 88 when Russian departments were flush with cash. The bottom dropped out of the field with a little help from Gorby (no, not Ronny).

    The CIA was often rumoured to stalk the halls of academe, waiting to pluck students like me who were, unfortunately for the CIA, more interested in Oblomov than Star Wars (Reagan's moronic missile shield).

    Come to think of it that's exactly the demographic Mi6 and the CIA should recruit, Russian/English speakers whose only ideology is an appreciation for the depth and complexity of Russian history and culture.


    HollyOldDog transplendent 13 Mar 2015 21:53

    A Russian speaker from an English University cannot understand the Russian mentality from your stated standpoint. If that is one of the requirements by the British secret services then they can only attract poor quality students.


    HollyOldDog RichWoods 13 Mar 2015 21:42

    Well if the West Ukrainians started to pay off their gas payment debt instead of stealing gas then no warnings need to be made by Russia about possible interrupted gas supplies beyond Russian control.


    Antidyatel 13 Mar 2015 20:47

    Ok.OK. I will send my resume. Obviously my track record on this forum is enough to qualify for this job. Fluent English and Russian and good knowledge of history, including all the disgusting nature of western culture.

    Inhumanoid -> Speenhamland 13 Mar 2015 20:45

    However, these days the net is cast far wider. For a couple of days this week if you entered "Russian language" and "university" into Google's UK search engine, above the results popped a jaunty, paid-for advertisement. "Understand Russian?" it asked. "Help protect the UK." A link took you to MI5's careers website.
    Reading, eh? Who has the time?

    hogsback -> CaptainFlack 13 Mar 2015 20:08

    Erm, there is no tap on the shoulder any more. That's the whole point.
    You can apply for a job at any of the three agencies directly online:
    https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/
    https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers.html
    http://www.gchq-careers.co.uk/index.html


    hogsback -> Linguistician 13 Mar 2015 20:04

    No, they recruit from across the entire UK - it's just that if you are recruiting Russian language specialists you are pretty limited in where you can recruit from, but you can guarantee that the students at Durham, Oxford, Bristol, Exeter etc will also have been approached.

    hogsback -> Ilja NB 13 Mar 2015 19:46

    The only ghetto in which Arabic is widely spoken is Mayfair. Are you suggesting all those millionaire Saudis and Emiratis are up to something? (other than annoying the neighbours by revving their Ferraris at 1am).

    RichWoods -> puskascat 13 Mar 2015 19:17

    The CIA running shoulder-launched missiles to the Afghan mujahideen via Peshawar? Remind me how that turned out.

    ApfelD 13 Mar 2015 18:17

    "The war against Russia is an important chapter in the German nation's struggle for existence. It is the old battle of the Germanic against the Slavic people, of the defense of European culture against Muscovite-Asiatic inundation and of the repulse of Jewish Bolshevism. The objective of this battle must be the demolition of present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity.

    Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron resolution to exterminate the enemy remorselessy and totally. In particular no adherents of the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared"
    1941


    musubi transplendent 13 Mar 2015 17:26

    "I'd rather have Russia as an enemy than a friend. At least you know where you stand." So some people apparently feel a need to demonise others in order "to know where they stand".

    Oh dear, oh dear, there seems to be little hope for humanity.

    ApfelD 13 Mar 2015 16:14

    The cold war managed returns as farce
    Russians are buying our family brilliants, houses, football clubs and yachts
    zillions of Russian speakers are walking around
    the Internet is full of Russians
    we need spies
    LOL


    Linguistician Marc de Berner 13 Mar 2015 15:27

    I don't think they seriously expect them to be able to pass as Russian. I expect a lot of the job revolves around SIGINT these days, just listening and interpreting. The poster also indicates that they expect their linguists to have spent time in the country and/or have cultural knowledge, i.e. not just sat in a classroom having learnt the cases and conjugations.

    Grumpymiddleagedman ID6945587 13 Mar 2015 14:41

    I spent years learning German Russian and Portuguese on the back of government promises about employment opportunities in the early 90's. Never saw a single job I could apply for except translating in some awful agency. Stuff the security services. And Up Russia.

    CaptainFlack 13 Mar 2015 14:26

    I have a background in engineering, and speak Chinese after spending time in the far east when I was younger, but I never got a tap on the shoulder. The most important thing for the security services, like most of the senior military and civil service jobs, is that you come from the "right" schools, because they assume this makes you decent, upright citizens rather than the kind of oikish commonfolk that are the real enemy to them.

    Anette Mor 13 Mar 2015 13:34

    They already killed trade with Russia, now they are killing of the sources for the UK overseas students. Russia (and Kazakhstan) had state budget sponsored kids sent to universities here, forgot about them from next year. It is already impossible to chat in any of the Russian forums in the UK because of no stop pro-Ukrainian abuse. When you force somebody away so badly you eventually make them an enemy.

    Paranoia, abuse, total surveillance - great place to live the UK.

    [Mar 15, 2015] Why our leaders can't be heroes any more by Jonathan Powell

    Note the the author never used the word "neoliberalism" in the article. This is what "identity politic" is about. for example tony Blair essentially sold his party to banksters and was royally remunerated for that. He also served as lapdog for Bush II neoconservative adventures. Personalities serve as a smoke screen to hide issues of attack of banksters on wellbeing of people. And the key task of neoliberal politician is to deceive people. Quote from comments: "Beyond terrible, an irrelevant article. There is simply no point being made, just a slapdash bundle of clichés thrown out in sequence in the vain hope of forming an argument." and another "Mr Powell kindly take my advice and fuck off, give your old china another award for his international legacy, shut up and be grateful you'll never face a criminal investigation for your part in the Iraq war."
    Mar 13, 2015 | The Guardian

    We yearn for politicians to fill the shoes of their all-powerful predecessors. But there are terrible dangers in trying to be superman

    There is a general lament about the Lilliputian nature of our current leaders. Where are the towering figures of the past? Why do we have such uninspiring leaders who can't even eat a bacon sandwich, or resist chillaxing on the job, or, in the case of the Greens, even remember their policies?

    There is, of course, nothing new about this. If you look back at the newspaper columns of the 1960s you will find commentators demanding to know where were the current-day Churchills and Bevans, and in the 1930s they wanted to know where leaders of the stature of Gladstone and Disraeli had gone. It is the familiar syndrome – from which I suffer – that as you get older, policemen look younger and younger.

    Nonetheless it is indisputably true that at the moment there is an unusual lack of strong, charismatic leaders, not just in the UK but in Europe too.

    It has come to something when Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is the dominant figure in Europe. I admire her quiet and subtle style of leadership, and she towers over her colleagues, but she is scarcely a colossus in the mould of a De Gaulle or even a Kohl. I vividly remember the first time Tony Blair met her, in the new British embassy in Berlin in 2004. Then the leader of the opposition in Germany, the soon-to-be chancellor plonked herself down in front of him and said disarmingly, "I have 10 problems" – and then began to list them, starting with a lack of charisma.

    The dearth of strong leaders is more than just the usual feast and famine – or it wouldn't extend across the west

    ... ... ...

    So maybe we should be careful what we wish for. Maybe strong leaders are not quite as alluring as we think, and we should celebrate the fact that our leaders are just like us. Just because one candidate can't remember his whole speech and the other likes to put his feet up on the job doesn't mean they can't govern. It could be that in the more constrained environment of developed democracies and a globalised economy, we actually want and need leaders in shades of grey rather than the towering figures of the past.


    Dani123 15 Mar 2015 01:09

    I don't want a "Führer", it's good for war and bloodshed only.
    In peaceful times grey technocrat manager are maybe abit color- but also bloodless.

    People from the past would envy us for our oh-so-boring kind of politicians.

    You wish for interesting times with interesting "personalities", well I don't.
    I like my lame and uninteresting times quite well, thank you....

    VelvetRevolutionary 14 Mar 2015 12:44

    Do you want to know why our political "...leaders can't be heroes anymore."? Our 21st century leaders are sorely lacking in human integrity, and they have completely lost their moral compass. That's why.

    dilawar 14 Mar 2015 02:20

    The French political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville, a great observer of man's affairs, while witnessing the birth of democracy in America, thought that the age of democracy will be the age of mediocrity. There will be a dead level plane of achievement in almost every kind of activity. A democratic person, due to various reasons he explains lucidly, does everything in hurry. He is always satisfied with "pretty well" and does not pause for an instance to think what he is doing.

    "His curiosity is at once insatiable and cheaply satisfied; for he cares more to know a great deal quickly than to know anything well: he has no time and but little taste to search things to the bottom". To make matter worse, "men of democracy worship chance, and are much less afraid of death than of difficulty".

    Despite his strong attachment to democracy, Tocqueville took great pains to point out what he thought to be a negative side of democracy: it will be an unheroic age. Tocqueville maintained that there wont be heroes in democratic societies because democracies are inherently incapable of producing them.

    But modern democracies were not able to do without heroes and this was also foreseen by Tocqueville with much misgivings. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that unlike aristocracy, there will not be a proper place for heroes or hero-worshipers in democracies, and when they arose they would sooner or later turn into despots. Modern democracy may or may not do without heroes but they certainly can not do without leaders. And in this modern age, which breeds them in great profusion, the problem is to know what to do with them.

    Democracies are no longer restricted to Europe or United States. They are now in many parts of this world in their own peculiar forms. They have acquired some distinct features of the societies in which they are able to grow. Human societies value heroes or charismatic personalities but some among are always more obsessed with them. These days, people seems to be somewhat tired of their politicians but it is not that people are tired for charisma; it only moves from politics to other area of public life. People reserve their praise and transfer their adulation for movie starts, sadhus and sants, sports-personalities and sometimes, for man of sciences.

    Here in India and neighbourhood, charismatic people from various fields have been using their charisma in politics. Some have been quite successful. NTR missed becoming the prime minister of India, Imran Khan is trying the same in Pakistan. The appeal of charisma, by which I mean the personal quality that secure instant and unquestioned devotions to the leader of his followers, is in decline everywhere. Not only there is no Nehru today, there is no de Gaulle and Winston Churchill. The consideration of this for the prospect of democracy and health of its institutions deserves some serious attention.

    Banditolobster 14 Mar 2015 01:37

    I don't particularly want our leaders to be heroic or devastatingly charismatic, I would settle for them being quietly competent and un corrupt, it amuses me that Merkel gets some stick in this article, she strikes me as a better leader by simply getting on with it, than many other leaders who are trying to summon up shades of Churchill and De Gaulle

    danielarnaut -> StTrevorofIlford 13 Mar 2015 17:17

    Thank you for your interest, though I lived in Britain most of my life I am of Catalan origin so I have always been interested in the ill fortune of some of the men and women who scape the Franco regime on the other side of the Pyrenees, so I started visiting the many concentration camps the Vichy regime built for the republican Spaniards in French soil.

    My neighbour in Newbury told me a weird story of Austrians in Frith Hill, or Frimley, near Camberley in Surrey. I heard of concentration camps for Irish freedom fighters in Shewsbury and Bromyard. I haven't got any information about those apparently in Tipperary and Southend. However, there are lots of information and literature on several concentration camps near Douglas and Peel in the Isle of Man which were built during the II WW.

    The BBC reported about a concentration camp near Leicester, Donnington Hall.
    But the most bizarre discovery I made was this one : I was just driving in the Dordogne (France) in 2010 when I came across a program in France Inter (radio) called " La bas si j'y suis ", I was speechless.

    A British historian was being interviewed about thirty concentration camps where more than two hundred thousand unemployed British guys were deported and put to hard labour, after the 1929 crash; these camps were in use up to 1939 ; that means the period under the labour government of Ramsey MacDonald. The idea was called: a New Deal (does it remind you of Tony's campaign for power?)

    People were forced to go these camps maybe to stop riots in certain cities. If they refused to go to the camps they had their benefit stopped at once. The inmates lived under awful conditions. They were treated like slaves and put to work for ten hours a day, forced to build roads, chop trees and crack stones.

    These were the years previous to the II WW and these concentration camps provided cheap labour before being sent to fight for king and country.

    HolyInsurgent, 13 Mar 2015 23:06

    Jonathan Powell: In part this vacuum is the result of a familiar pattern that normally a strong leader is immediately followed by a weak one. Margaret Thatcher was followed by John Major, Blair by Gordon Brown, Ronald Reagan by George Bush Sr, and so on.

    The theory is obviously meaningless. In each case, which one was the strong leader and which the weak one? Who decides?

    Without a substantial army they cannot take a leading role in world affairs. And as part of Nato and the European Union, their scope for independent foreign policy initiatives is severely limited.

    Considering NATO is America's military branch to enforce its foreign policy, the UK is simply an American client state. There is nothing to stop NATO from being dissolved and the EU pooling its separate countries' militaries as a united force. But of course America won't allow NATO to be dissolved. Why would it?

    No one in Russia would complain that they suffer from weak leaders at the moment.

    The Russian people voted for Putin. The West can think what they like of him, but he was elected.

    In China, with "Papa Xi", the cult of personality has returned virtually to the levels under Mao.

    What does the author suggest be done about it?

    Beyond terrible, an irrelevant article. There is simply no point being made, just a slapdash bundle of clichés thrown out in sequence in the vain hope of forming an argument.

    VarmintRaptScallion 13 Mar 2015 14:11

    I don't think you can get through Michael Sandal's Justice lecture series without acknowledging that the battle between moral principles and moral utilitarianism forces a leader to wade into some pretty grey areas.

    As a society it is probably better that we accept the inevitable corruption that takes hold in leaders and design political systems that take account of this. The concept of heroes and villains is at the heart of propaganda and only serves the status quo.

    Just like the erroneous belief that the current political paradigm is somehow the pinnacle of human evolution.

    BlogAnarchist 13 Mar 2015 13:23

    Got up to here and realised this article was a joke piece.

    In part this vacuum is the result of a familiar pattern that normally a strong leader is immediately followed by a weak one. Margaret Thatcher was followed by John Major, Blair by Gordon Brown, Ronald Reagan by George Bush Sr, and so on. It is very hard for a new strong leader to grow up in the shadow of an existing strong leader. Their successors are nearly always lower-key figures.

    Nathaniel P -> Cape7441 13 Mar 2015 13:21

    I noticed this. Politicians are basically allowed no respite, and their very characters are dissected in the media. It is almost as if they are not allowed to be human. It seems to me that the rivalry is just too strong- while debating and having different views is of course central to democratic politics, politicians should never be spiteful and nasty to rival politicians because they have a different political view- they should even feel comfortable complimenting their rivals' ideas and promises if they feel the need, but this never happens because the rivalry was too strong.

    Apparently, PM Stanley Baldwin used to politely chat to politicians in Parliament buildings, regardless of their party- maybe if this kind of thing was increased, politicians would be followed and seen as 'heroes' as they would be seen as human beings like the rest of us and not participants in slagging matches!

    greyskies 13 Mar 2015 13:15

    A politician should be a hero. They have the power to affect the lives of millions and should feel the weight of that responsibility every day. There are thoughtful and responsible MPs in our current parliament: Rory Stewart, Douglass Carswell, David Davis, Sarah Wollaston, Tom Watson, Margaret Hodge to name a few that I can respect. Unfortunately thoughtful MPs are rarely seen because they feel they should be loyal to their party or because they are rightfully afraid of being misunderstood. We need our MPs to be more heroic and put themselves out there and argue for their visions of the future of the country.

    socialistnotnulabour -> TwigTheWonderKid 13 Mar 2015 13:01

    You don't live in the real world if you think anyone just basing their arguments on evidence.

    I make my arguments based on evidence but I'm not so conceited to believe my beliefs don't have some effect on how I view the evidence.

    Zealots seem to believe they are the ones with the only correct view of evidence and are inflexible to believe anything else despite being shown they have come to the wrong conclusion.

    You should always be open to the fact that your conclusion from the evidence may actually be wrong.

    Even in the scientific world, evidence and facts are not always used in a truthful way.


    Bryced 13 Mar 2015 12:38

    The Labour Party. A man of the stature of Nye Bevin to the likes of puppet Tony B-lair and his collaborators. Yikes. Times have certainly changed. Deep, no deeper than that, endless bloody sigh. Makes you want to weep.

    HumanistLove 13 Mar 2015 12:17

    Accountable, intelligent, promise keeper, not beholden to special interests, consensus oriented, domestic issues as priority, sensitive to the most vulnerable in society...a mensch for, by and of the people.

    I believe a leader's personal life should be respected as private, as we all wish for ourselves.

    kippers 13 Mar 2015 11:42

    The Butler Report into the lack of WMD in Iraq criticised "sofa government". This was a polite way of criticising the way decisions were taken by Tony Blair and a small group of unelected advisors without the knowledge of Cabinet (and sometimes contrary to what had been decided in Cabinet). Jonathan Powell was one of those advisors. His response to that criticism was that this was the way things were done these days.

    Few people want leaders to be heroes. They want accountable government. That would reduce the risk of small groups of people seizing the controls and making erroneous assumptions like "it is an established fact that Iraq has WMD" and "the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan will be short and sharp".

    Krishnamoorthi 13 Mar 2015 11:20

    This a typical syndrome affecting every aspect of capitalist society. Individuals have their limitations and it is the system of government and the state apparatus which makes or unmakes an individual! Even if Churchill was not there there would have been another one to replace him. Giving too much of credit to individuals is just flattery! Individuals like Mandela are products of a wider Picture! To reduce the achievements or failures on a single person is just a simpleminded argument!

    stuartMilan 13 Mar 2015 11:07

    and the Graun stands up for British decency again..?

    Mr Powell kindly take my advice and fuck off, give your old china another award for his international legacy, shut up and be grateful you'll never face a criminal investigation for your part in the Iraq war.

    Ricardo111 13 Mar 2015 10:50

    Competent would be good. And honest. And principled.

    Instead what we have is corrupt, two-faced snake-oil salesmen in posh style.

    As for the "superhero" politicians of the past, they were no such thing: only the ignorant of history and weak of spirit would deify past leaders.

    weematt 13 Mar 2015 10:36

    We do not need leaders.It is silly to expect politicians to be leaders in the class struggle.

    Politicians are elected to run capitalism in the interests of the business class 1-5%. In a representative democracy this is diametrically opposed to the interests of workers 95-99%.

    All the economic clout is with the corporations and landowners, owned by a tiny minority of people, possibly around 5 percent. Owning the means of production allows them to cream off a profit or a surplus for themselves, and they do this by exploiting the rest of us. Their economic power is backed up by political power. The state is there to try and manage the status quo, and protect the interests of those with all the wealth. This doesn't mean that they have control over the economy, though. Market forces fluctuate between growth and slump regardless of what politicians and corporate strategists want.

    This arrangement leads to massive inequalities in wealth, not just within this country, but across the globe. Goods and services only go to those who can afford them, not to those who need them. Those who can't afford the basics risk falling into a lifestyle of poverty it's hard to escape from. Living in an unequal world where everything is rationed creates divisions between us, leading to prejudice and discrimination. Even those of us with a reasonable standard of living never have enough real involvement or sense of ownership in where we work and live.

    To solve the problems in society, we have to change the way society is structured. This means going from our world where the means to produce and distribute wealth are owned by a minority, to one where those resources and facilities are owned by everyone in common. Then, goods would be produced and services would be run directly for anyone who wants them, without the dictates of the economic market. Industries and services would be run just to satisfy people's needs and wants.

    All this could only be achieved by fundamentally changing the way society is organised, a revolution. The kind of revolution we want is one which involves the vast majority of people across the world. Every country now is part of an integrated global economy and class structure. So, people across the world would have to want to change society. The only legitimate and practical way this could be achieved is by organising equally and democratically. This means voluntary, creative work, with decisions and responsibilities agreed through everyone having an equal say. This would mean a much broader and more inclusive use of democracy than we're used to today. Different democratic organisations or procedures would apply in different circumstances. This doesn't mean having leaders or groups with more authority than others.

    "I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands." Eugene Debbs

    mespilus 13 Mar 2015 10:14

    If you are one of the 1%,
    there have been several Supermen in the last 5 years;

    George Osborne has lowered the upper rate of income tax, and given a bountiful tax break to hedge funds.

    Andrew Lansley has made it much easier to divert public funds towards contracted out private health care providers.

    Michael Gove has given away untold wealth by handing over school premises to Academy chains, and diverted local authority destined funds towards 'Free School's.
    Vince Cable sold the Royal Mail for a song, and the share in Eurostar will soon join HS1 in private hands.

    Supermen one & all.

    I'm sure you can add a few more.

    Matthew2012 13 Mar 2015 10:14

    I think that our modern politicians read Nietzsche and decide that they are supermen (ubermensch) not men.

    It matters little to them what we want - if they can get our vote.

    The problem is that they don't think that they need to listen

    ClericPreston 13 Mar 2015 10:09

    Leaders are not leaders of much any more.

    They don't have to be strong, they have to be fair, consistent and honest. The difficulty arises in the 2 dimensional thought that they have to do something big, stamp their mark, start some war or other to be the Big man (or woman in the case of Thatch).

    Cameron will never appear strong because he's obviously a bought man, too many vested interests leaning on him. How can you look up to a person who can be "swayed" so readily for donations and has lied on so many occasions?

    A lot of the day to day business of the country is now run by outsourcing companies, they don't answer to any elected leader, you would think this would allow a leader to develop in a more focused way, but this hasn't materialised, far from Cameron rolling up his sleeves at an appropriate time (rather than an opportunistic moment) and getting on with something for the people he seems to have spent his entire premiership publicising his party and raising funds to further drive that process not just for the last month or two but since the day he took office, 5 years! I don't think that even at the height of Thatcher's time can it be said that so much time has been spent on such things by a PM.

    Our leader, imho, is a Publicity machine first, a Tory second and a PM last. To me that is the wrong way around.

    Caroline Kennedy 13 Mar 2015 10:09

    As we all know, Jonathan Powell is one of Tony Blair's most simpering apologists. He, like many other Blair sycophants, ended up on the board of Save the Children.

    Hence the tainted "Global Legacy Award" for Blair, a man responsible for the deaths, injuries and long term disabilities of literally tens of thousands of children in Iraq, Afghanistan and across areas of the Middle East. Not to mention the number of orphans he has created.

    To compare Tony Blair with any politician other than those we already despise for their despotic rule, such as Robert Mugabe, Emperor Bokassa, Ferdinand Marcos etc is to insult those we admire such as Roosevelt, Kennedy and Mandela.

    Matthew2012 JayEnn 13 Mar 2015 10:09

    or about Gordon Brown being ugly?

    Media influence and vacuums in real substance.

    In WWII no one really cared what Churchill looked like in comparison to his policies.

    When we see so little integrity in our politicians, no accountability, ignoring expert advice and influence of vested interests? How do we judge the difference in our politicians?

    We have issues such as climate change where we are being failed in the most fundamental respect by politicians everywhere. And rather then debate it - we are faced with a 3 party agreement not to discuss it.

    The ideologies have become stale and the centre vote is all that is pursued. So whether you agree with issues or not it is no longer a matter of principles but about getting voted in.

    The UK government is being treated like a middle manager job and we don't see a great deal of proven competence by any of them.

    danielarnaut 13 Mar 2015 09:32

    Quite ingenuously, or lack of knowledge, Churchill is described by most of you as a great war leader. I am surprised people don't remember the famine provoked in southern Asia, the threat of military heavy handed action against the miners, or simple his own declarations admitting adhering to fascism. Without a Furher, Britain could have easily slipped into a dictatorship. And we had all the ingredients such as inflicting fear, massacres, starvation, imposition of twisted rules, concentration camps built even in the north of England for the unemployed and wherever a country fell on the hands of the sacro saint british empire people were forced to change behaviour, culture, language... to embrace the new deal and be civilised. Human loss was considerable. Churchil could have continue this trend.

    excathedra 13 Mar 2015 09:20

    Thatcher wasn't a strong leader, she was a lunatic hell bent on destroying the working class and the social advantages the post war consensus had brought.

    As for leaders I, and I suspect many others, just want honesty, decency and an end to the greed, hubris and vanity projects. If they want war then they ought to be in the front not organising and garnering contacts for future use.

    Wishful thinking I know but the alternatives are not worth continuing with.

    tobymoore 13 Mar 2015 08:57

    Trapped in an economic system which is clearly no longer capable of providing the society that people want, or could have if it we were solely limited by human ingenuity, the main job of our so-called leaders is to "manage expectation", i.e. to tell us what we can't have.

    There is no room left for visions of a better future. In any case, the obsession with leaders is infantile and leaves the door wide open for frauds and demagogues.

    crinklyoldgit 13 Mar 2015 06:56

    This article is hopeless. The issue here is that politicians and their appointees have become able to evade accountability by legal clever stepping . Blair is untouchable, legally speaking, but no one is under illusions about his abuse of privilege. All else is meaningless drivel until we can claw some meaningful accountability into the way affairs are managed, and make those who would abuse their powers think twice.

    Jimcomment 13 Mar 2015 04:50

    The difference with the Press shows the key difference here - international corporations have huge power these days. Politicians whose interests do not align with theirs find that media and funding strategies quickly go against them.

    Right or wrong, previous leaders held firm convictions. Cameron shows very clearly that he has none - he is a PR man with no interest in working as a politician, let alone being PM. But this suits those who wield economic and media power, and so he is financially backed and applauded by much of the Press.

    JonPurrtree 13 Mar 2015 04:23

    I'm not sure Hollande ever was on a pedestal. And if it wasn't for those pesky americans, Strauss-Kahn would have been President, no questions asked about his wandering hands and worse.

    But how on earth did we end up with the likes of Hollande and Milliband2 ?
    I'd be happy with boring yet competant looking people like Darling or Major, but such people seem to have been culled.

    [Mar 14, 2015] Russia warns US against supplying 'lethal defensive aid' to Ukraine

    Mar 14, 2015 | RT News

    Moscow has warned Washington a potential policy shift from supplying Kiev with "non-lethal aid" to "defensive lethal weapons", mulled as US Vice President visits Ukraine, would be a direct violation of all international agreements.

    A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that reports of possible deliveries of American "defensive weapons" to Ukraine would be viewed by Russia as a "very serious signal."

    "We heard repeated confirmations from the [US] administration, that it only supplies non-lethal aid to Ukraine. If there is a change of this policy, then we are talking about a serious destabilizing factor which could seriously affect the balance of power in the region," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich cautioned.

    His remarks follow US deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken Wednesday's statement at a hearing before the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, in which he said that Biden may offer the provision of "lethal defensive weapons" as he visits Ukraine. Lethal assistance "remains on the table. It's something that we're looking at," Blinken said.

    "We paid attention not only to such statements, but also to the trip of representatives of Ukrainian volunteer battalions to Washington, who tried to muster support of the US administration," Lukashevich said.

    The Ministry made it clear that such a move by Washington would violate a number of agreements.

    "This is a very serious signal for several reasons. First of all, this is a direct violation of agreements, including the ones achieved in partnership with the United States. I mean the Geneva Declaration from 17 April," said the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman.

    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko requested lethal aid from the US during a visit to Washington in September.

    READ MORE: Obama declines to give Ukraine 'lethal aid' despite Poroshenko's plea

    The American Vice President who has arrived in Kiev late Thursday has not yet made any official announcement, but Reuters' sources point to the possibility that US might increase a "non-lethal" aid package to Kiev instead of opting to supply arms.

    Under the non-lethal aid package, the US could deliver to Ukraine first Humvee vehicles and radars but as officials pointed out such deliveries would unlikely alter the conflict. Previous non-lethal aid to Ukraine announced in September included military equipment such as counter-mortar detection units, body armor, binoculars and other gear worth $53 million.

    At the same time the US diplomatic branch announced that it will continue to send advisers to Kiev and has allocated funds to Ukraine to battle what both the US and Ukraine see as a threat from Russia.

    SOIC 2 hours ago
    This Slavic, territorial 'domestic' conflict must be approached with extreme prudence.

    The US interests (real or manifested) do not justify inciting unrestrained escalation of force in proxy.

    Despite what social antagonisms are perpetrated and the 'trajectory' of global sentiment, the Russian Federation will stand united and abreast, not in opposition to Ukraine but to the United States.

    War has an intoxicating effect on nonobjective and narrowly fixated policy makers in industrial military nation states!

    Robin Bolt 5 hours ago

    P.S. Mustafa Masi Nayyem is still breathing because??? I have no respect for men anywhere when people like this can cause thousands to die on both sides, and then he is given a high profile job in the new Ukrainian government, and continues to work the media? He should be charged with inciting a war, not given a free pass & citizenship, what is wrong with people????

    Robin Bolt 5 hours ago

    Manuel Garcia

    God have mercy...The worst is yet to come. Prepare for the worst on both sides.

    I think we are worrying for nothing.... the people of Russia & the USA are far greater than these foreign invaders who are inciting wars everywhere...

    If people would set their "religions of peace" aside for a minute & stop feeding the animals, they'd see some of the main issues... Mustafa Masi Nayyem for instance.... How is this not a topic of interest????

    Robin Bolt 5 hours ago

    Unreal.... Complete ignorance. EU, UN & NATO should step-off, same with the US. It amazes me how so many ignore the plain truth. The people in change of Ukraine now, are no better than our own typical American street gangs & deserve 0 support, they caused 1000s of people on both sides of this issue to suffer a great deal, all so they could illegally take office & not have to pay what was owed to Russia. I am grateful for whoever got rid of Nemtsov, it kept them from trying to create the same ordeal they did in Ukraine, in Moscow.... 1 vs. 100s of 1000s, I'm all for it. I don't agree with certain things about Russia, but what happened in Ukraine is completely insane... I hold the EU, UN & Nato responsible for what happened, and the rest of the world is just as bad for staying silent or neutral. Ignorance isn't always bliss... As much as I don't like our current US President, I would never agree to illegal activity that overthrew the Government and replaced the Obama Administration with people who respect laws even less.... why then are people ignoring that this happened to the Pro-Russian leaders who were in office, and that crooks are running Ukraine now & would rather create more strife than pay their bills & act like men?

    [Mar 14, 2015] Michael Hudson on the IMF's Tender Ministrations in Ukraine and Greece naked capitalism

    Mar 14, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

    This RT interview with Michael Hudson focuses on the appalling state of the Ukraine economy and the role of the IMF, both in its policy-violating rescue package there and on a more general basis. Hudson points out that the IMF was always a vehicle of policy, and is operating as an adjunct to the Pentagon. What is left unsaid is that the IMF loan is being used as an alternative to a Congressional appropriation to fund the government in Kiev against the aspiring breakaway region in the east.

    The section with Hudson starts at 13:45.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLM9PqxxRjQ

    Yves Smith Post author March 14, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    They are not alone. Ukrainians are fleeing the country in record numbers: since February 2014, 600,000 Ukrainians have sought asylum or other forms of legal stay in neighboring countries, and thousands more have moved to the U.S. and the European Union. Others have fled illegally: Poland reported a 100 percent increase in the number of detentions of illegal Ukrainian immigrants last year.

    But the emigrants are not only asylum seekers. They are the Western-leaning intelligentsia, the professional classes with relatives abroad, and the students of the Maidan who first organized protests against former President Viktor Yanukovych's kleptocratic and violent government in November 2013.

    Mark, March 14, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Interesting long comment at that article by one of the people interviewed for the article..

    part of which was

    "yeah, well, the only thing which they conveniently left out, is that everybody in this article decided to leave long ago before the revolution."

    [Mar 14, 2015] A Review of 'Frontline Ukraine' by Richard Sakwa

    Mar 05, 2015 | hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk

    You might have thought that a serious book on the Ukraine crisis, written by a distinguished academic in good clear English, and published by a reputable house, might have gained quite a bit of attention at a time when that country is at the centre of many people's concerns.

    But some readers here now understand that publishing, and especially the reviewing of books, are not the simple marketplaces of ideas which we would all wish them to be.

    And so, as far as I can discover, this book :

    'Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands , by Richard Sakwa. Published by I.B.Tauris

    …though it came out some months ago, has only been reviewed in one place in Britain, the Guardian newspaper, by Jonathan Steele, the first-rate foreign correspondent whose rigour and enterprise (when we were both stationed in Moscow) quite persuaded me to overlook his former sympathy for the left-wing cause (most notably expressed in a 1977 book 'Socialism with a German Face' about the old East Germany, which seemed to me at the time to be ah, excessively kind).

    Mr Steele's review can be read here

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/19/frontline-ukraine-crisis-in-borderlands-richard-sakwa-review-account

    I have said elsewhere that I would myself be happier if the book were more hostile to my position on this conflict. Sometimes I feel that it is almost too good to be true, to have my own conclusions confirmed so powerfully, and I would certainly like to see the book reviewed by a knowledgeable proponent of the NATO neo-conservative position. Why hasn't it been?

    But even so I recommend it to any reader of mine who is remotely interested in disentangling the reality from the knotted nets of propaganda in which it is currently shrouded.

    Like George Friedman's interesting interview in the Moscow newspaper 'Kommersant' ( you can read it here http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/20/2561 ) , the book has shifted my own view.

    I have tended to see the *basic* dispute in Ukraine as being yet another outbreak of the old German push into the east, carried out under the new, nice flag of the EU, a liberal, federative empire in which the vassal states are tactfully allowed limited sovereignty as long as they don't challenge the fundamental politico-economic dominance of Germany. I still think this is a strong element in the EU's thrust in this direction.

    But I have tended to neglect another feature of the new Europe, also set out in Adam Tooze's brilliant 'The Deluge' – the firm determination of the USA to mould Europe in its own image (a determination these days expressed mainly through the EU and NATO).

    I should have paid more attention to the famous words 'F*** the EU!' spoken by the USA's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, in a phone call publicised to the world by (presumably) Russian intelligence. The EU isn't half as enthusiastic about following the old eastern road as is the USA. Indeed, it's a bit of a foot-dragger.

    The driving force in this crisis is the USA, with the EU being reluctantly tugged along behind. And if Mr Friedman is right (and I think he is), the roots of it lie in Russia's decision to obstruct the West's intervention in Syria.

    Perhaps the key to the whole thing (rather dispiriting in that it shows the USA really hasn't learned anything important from the Iraq debacle) is the so-called 'Wolfowitz Doctrine' of 1992, named after the neo-con's neo-con, Paul Wolfowitz, and summed up by Professor Sakwa (p.211) thus: 'The doctrine asserted that the US should prevent "any country from dominating any region of the world that might be a springboard to threaten unipolar and exclusive US dominance"'.

    Note how neatly this meshes with what George Friedman says in his interview.

    Now, there are dozens of fascinating things in Professor Sakwa's book, and my copy is scored with annotations and references. I could spend a week summarising it for you. (By the way, the Professor himself is very familiar with this complex region, and might be expected, thanks to his Polish ancestry, to take a different line. His father was in the Polish Army in 1939, escaped to Hungary in the chaos of defeat, and ended up serving in Anders's Second Corps, fighting with the British Army at El Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then through Italy via Monte Cassino. Then he was in exile during the years of Polish Communism. Like Vaclav Klaus, another critic of current western policy, Professor Sakwa can hardly be dismissed as a naif who doesn't understand about Russia, or accused of being a 'fellow-traveler' or 'useful idiot'.

    He is now concerned at 'how we created yet another crisis' (p xiii) .

    But I would much prefer that you read it for yourself, and so will have to limit my references quite sternly.

    There are good explanations of the undoubted anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies of some strands in Ukrainian politics. Similar nastiness, by the way, is to be found loose in some of the Baltic States. I mention this n because it justified classifying the whole movement as 'Neo-Nazi', which is obviously false, but because it tells us something very interesting about the nature of nationalism and Russophobia in this part of the world. No serious or fair description of the crisis can ignore it. Yet, in the portrayal of Russia as Mordor, and the Ukraine as Utopia, western media simply leave out almost everything about Ukraine that doesn't appeal to their audiences, the economic near collapse, the Judophobia and Russophobia (the derogatory word 'Moskal', for instance, in common use), the worship of the dubious (this word is very generous, I think) Stepan Bandera by many of the Western ultra-nationalists, the violence against dissenters from the Maidan view ( see http://rt.com/news/ukraine-presidential-candidates-attacked-516/). The survival and continued power of Ukraine's oligarchs after a revolution supposedly aimed at cleaning up the country is also never mentioned. We all know about Viktor Yanukovych;s tasteless mansion, but the book provides some interesting details on President Poroshenko's residence (it looks rather like the White House) , which I have not seen elsewhere.

    The detailed description of how and why the Association Agreement led to such trouble is excellent. I had not realised that, since the Lisbon Treaty, alignment with NATO is an essential part of EU membership (and association) – hence the unavoidable political and military clauses in the agreement.

    So is the filleting of the excuse-making and apologetics of those who still pretend that Yanukovych was lawfully removed from office: the explicit threat of violence from the Maidan, the failure to muster the requisite vote, the presence of armed men during the vote, the failure to follow the constitutional rules (set beside the available lawful deal, overridden by the Maidan, under which Yanukovych would have faced early elections and been forced to make constitutional changes) .

    Then here we have Ms Nuland again, boasting of the $5 billion (eat your heart out, the EU, with your paltry £300 million) http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm which the USA has 'invested in Ukraine. 'Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We've invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.

    It's worth noting that in this speech, in December 2013, she still envisages the supposedly intolerable Yanukovych as a possible partner.

    Other points well made are the strange effect of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, which has created the very tension against which it now seeks to reassure border nations, by encouraging them, too, to join, the non-binding nature of the much-trumpeted Budapest memorandum, the lack of coverage of the ghastly events in Odessa, the continuing lack of a proper independent investigation into the Kiev mass shootings in February 2014 .

    Also examined is the Russian fear of losing Sevastopol, an entirely justified fear given that President Yushchenko had chosen to say in Georgia, during the war of August 2008, that Russia's basing rights in the city would end in 2017. The 'disappearance; of the 'Right Sector' and 'Svoboda' vote in recent elections is explained by their transfer to the radical Party led by Oleh Lyashko.

    Professor Sakwa also explores Russia's behaviour in other border disputes , with Norway and China, in which it has been far from aggressive. And he points out that Ukraine's nationalists have made their country's life far more difficult by their rigid nationalist approach to the many citizens of that country who, while viewing themselves as Ukrainian, do not share the history or passions of the ultra-nationalists in the West.

    Likewise he warns simple-minded analysts that the conflict in the East of Ukraine is not desired by Russia's elite, which does not wish to be drawn into another foreign entanglement (all Russian strategists recall the disastrous result of the Afghan intervention). But it may be desired by Russian ultra-nationalists, not necessarily controllable.

    He points out that Russia has not, as it did in Crimea, intervened decisively in Eastern Ukraine to ensure secession. And he suggests that those Russian nationalists are acting in many cases independently of Moscow in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Putin seeks to control them and limit them, but fears them as well.

    In general, the book is an intelligent, well-researched and thoughtful attempt to explain the major crisis of our time. Anybody, whatever he or she might think of the issue, would benefit from reading it. It is shocking that it is not better known, and I can only assume that its obscurity, so far is caused by the fact that it does not fit the crude propaganda narrative of the 'Putin is Hitler' viewpoint.

    How odd that we should all have learned so little from the Iraq debacle. This time the 'WMD' are non-existent Russian plans to expand and/or attack the Baltic states. And of course the misrepresentation of both sides in the Ukrainian controversy is necessary for the portrayal of Putin as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis, and opponents of belligerence as Nazi fellow-travellers. The inconvenient fact , that if there are Nazis in this story , they tend to be on the 'good' side must be ignored. Let us hope the hysteria subsides before it carries us into another stupid war.

    March 5, 2015 Comments (54) Categories: Cold War , History , New Cold War , Russia , Ukraine | Permalink

    Comments

    LornaJean | 10 March 2015 at 09:00 AM

    There should be a proper inquiry into who really started this conflict I recall watching on TV as the boxer who was leading the Kiev mob came out of lengthy negotiations with the 3 EU ministers and the crowds booing and erupting The infamous Julia also appeared on the scene. this was of course after only a few hours previously that Obama announced that he had agreement with Putin to have a peaceful resolution and elections in 3 months.

    As I watched the eruption of the mob I Thought this will end badly and at that point the EU should have withdrawn. However the subsequent violence and the removal of the elected leader followed. All interviews with the people in the East and Crimea showed their distrust of the Kiev crowd and it was clear that the oligarchs on the East who had many workers and controlled the manufacturing would not support the East. Putin is a nasty man but to suggest that he deliberately caused this situation is a travesty.Russia with refugees pouring over the border reacted to the situation and who can blame them.? Now a less belligerent and frankly dishonest approach needs to be taken by the EU I can not see that the Kiev regime can ever win the loyalty of the East after this bitter war.the only solution is some sort of autonomous regios that allows the Esst of Ukraine to rule themselves.

    Bill Jones | 10 March 2015 at 01:28 AM

    This made me smile:

    " I would certainly like to see the book reviewed by a knowledgeable proponent of the NATO neo-conservative position. Why hasn't it been? "

    Because to be knowledgeable is not to be a Neo-conservative.

    Mr Rob | 09 March 2015 at 02:45 PM

    @Mike B

    "I haven't responded to your comments on McCain and Nuland because I thought that I had made it clear that I thought external interference from any quarter was undesirable and I accept that there has been such interference from both sides."

    Oh really? You do not remember writing this then?

    "It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych. They should be allowed to deal with their internal disputes and decide their future alliances and associations."

    or this?

    "However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU) did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter and, whatever the faults on either side, should have been left at that."

    And on this thread you had not even mentioned the USA involvement. You have been consistently dishonest by omission. Well, at least you're consistent.

    And now you manage the immortal words

    "I do maintain, though, that the interference of the EU and USA" [well done for mentioning them at last],"which cannot be denied" [but can, it seems, be ignored...] "and which was reflected in Russia's own behaviour cannot be compared with Russia's subsequent blatant military involvement in a sovereign country's internal conflict."

    So on the one hand the EU and the USA have interfered, but on the other it is an "internal conflict".

    Priceless.

    Roy Robinson | 08 March 2015 at 05:48 PM

    @Alan Thomas By my reading of certain facts I deduce there is a de facto alliance between Russia and China. These facts being that Russia trades arms to China but the USA will not trade arms to either. On May 8th Xi Jingping will attend the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow accompanied by his junk yard dog Kim Jong Un of North Korea. No Western leaders as far as I know will be in attendance. De facto alliances such as the one Britain had with France in 1914 are always hard to call because unlike formal ones such as Nato there is nothing in writing. I also suspect that one reason China has not tried to match America in nuclear weapons so far is because Russia already does so. North Korea is also very useful in that it can be used to threaten Japan without China appearing to be the aggressor.

    Mr Rob | 08 March 2015 at 11:16 AM

    @ Mike B

    I see you have ignored my request to answer the questions I posed to Hector (who has also yet to respond) about the US presence at the Maidan. Perhaps you needed to ignore my request in order to write this drivel with a straight face:

    Re Yanukovych: "However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU) did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter and, whatever the faults on either side, should have been left at that."

    Some Ukrainians carried out the WW2 massacre at Khatyn (not Katyn) - does that mean that all Ukrainians are responsible for it, approved of it, or that it was carried out on behalf of Ukrainians? Of course not.

    You have also studiously avoided mention of the presence at the Maidan of US Senator McCain and US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, and the latter's meetings with the Maidan leaders, co-ordinated with US Ambassador Pyatt.

    You have also somehow omitted to mention Yatseniuk's ("Yats") lightning visit to Washington days after the overthrow of Yanukovych, or the visit of CIA Director Brennan to Kiev.

    And just for the record, I have first-hand oral evidence of people in Minsk, Belarus, being offered money to go to the Maidan - so even that the Maidan crowd was completely Ukrainian is probably untrue.

    You accuse Mr Klimenko of bias, and yet you yourself give and repeat a dishonest account of what is known to have happened at the Maidan.

    Such behaviour has no place in proper debate.

    Ian | 08 March 2015 at 11:04 AM

    To Mike B and others...

    It's all very well to agonize about what Ukrainians may or may not want. We could all weep huge quantities of crocodile tears over Ukraine's thwarted "self determination", but the essential fact is that Ukrainians are not agreed about what they want. Some appear to want closer ties with the EU, some appear to want to maintain the status quo and some appear to want closer ties with the Russian Federation.

    All of which is "interesting" until different factions within Ukraine start calling on their preferred partners to back them up. It seems to me that the US and the EU have contributed more than one would reasonably expect to the discord in Ukraine and silly expectations in a great many Ukrainians. To describe this as "irresponsible" is something of an understatement.

    We are now in a situation where the "preferred partners" might come to blows over the confused and discordant expectations of Ukraine. In such a situation. it would be hard for me to care less about what Ukrainians want especially when some of Ukraine's politicians sound as though they would happily see the world burn if only it ensures "territorial Integrity" for Ukraine.

    It's a very old trick for which "socialists" should be famous. Describe a group as deserving, noble and disadvantaged... and use this supposed circumstance to justify the most ridiculous, regressive and destructive policy the human mind can invent. Of course, with our own "socialists", the all important thing is that they are not only well rewarded with a reputation for being "caring sharing human beings"... but also very well paid for the disasters they inflict on us.

    Edward Klimenko | 08 March 2015 at 10:50 AM

    @MikeB

    'did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter'

    What the EU did was the equivalent of persuading one party in a Mexican stand-off to lower his weapon so that the other can shoot him safely. Yes, the EU most certainly organized Yanukovich's removal - the EU normally takes a dim view of governments established by putsch, but recognized this particular band of putschists almost immediately.

    And why was it not an internal matter when Ukrainian police were attempting to clear Maidan of the lawless occupying mob, but instead a human rights crisis demanding sanctions against everyone from the Prosecutor-General to Yanukovich's barber?

    'You should note, however, that he fled his country on the same day that he announced an agreement with his opponents.'

    You are mistaken, he did not flee the country the day the agreement was made. He left the city of Kiev for Kharkov, his motorcade coming under fire as he did so. As the putsch developed, he called a conference in Kharkov of regional governors still loyal to the rightful president, the participants agreeing to administer their own regions until lawful authority could be reestablished in the rest of the country.

    Two factors brought about the failure of this effort: the first was the success of Valentin Nalivaichenko's takeover of the SBU, and the second was the cowardly betrayal by Kharkov regional governor Mikhail Dobkin and Kharkov city mayor Gennady Kernes, who panicked and fled when they heard that the SBU was after them (both would later cut deals with the Maidan regime for their own survival). Fearing capture by the SBU and feeling unable to trust anybody, Yanukovich then departed for the Crimea.

    You might think this would be safe place for him to make his stand. You would be wrong - the mood in Crimea at the time was one of utter disgust for Yanukovich and the Regions Party on account of their utter failure to defend the state and the people, which only grew after it came to light that the scum Yanukovich had appointed as mayor of Sevastopol had been conspiring to surrender the city to the Right Sector. Crimea wanted out of the Ukraine, and had no interest in helping Yanukovich get his seat back. Out of options, he finally fled to the Russian mainland on or about February 26.

    As for the rest, I'll say it again: the 'Holodomor' is a fiction, an attempt to portray a famine that affected a vast swathe of the USSR as campaign against Ukrainians specifically, when in truth it most heavily affected the non-Ukrainian Donbass region. It is invoked by western Ukrainians whose ancestors did not experience it to justify their racial hatred for eastern Ukrainians whose ancestors did. You ought to be ashamed of spreading such rot, and you should stop trying to frame your own biases as 'objectivity'.

    Grant | 07 March 2015 at 08:32 PM

    I listened to that.

    Everything Peter said was spot on. That other bloke who was challenging you is a dangerous idiot. You pointed out to him that we do not call Chinese regime tyrants, or the Saudis, yet he immediately replies calling Putin a vile tyrant. Totally obvious to what you just told him like he is a brainwashed stuck record.

    NATO is now the armed wing of EU expansion. They intentionally sent Russia that message during the Kosovo war by including the Luftwaffe bombing in previous Russia spheres of influence.

    mikebarnes | 07 March 2015 at 07:13 PM

    @ Edward Klimenko

    If nothing else I like your style . Many contributors here think they know. And a few think you know more than them. I think on this subject you certainly know more than I . Whether your correct is unknown at least by me . But.

    Oh that our snot brained, could have need for the dentistry they so deserve.

    No matter whose in the right here , and I suspect neither are. Its their business and that of the federation they once belonged . Just as northern Island was our business . But Clinton poked his snout in .

    The compromise, killers and bombers running the country might well be repeated with a split country just like the many created since the chaos following WWII.

    Roy Robinson | 07 March 2015 at 05:42 PM

    @Alan Thomas The Eurasian hard men such as Putin, Erdogan , Modi and XI Jinping all seem to understand one another and are doing business together.

    They all lead countries which have been on the receiving of Western aggression over the last few centuries Modern Westerners with their naive PC outlook like to overlook this but the people in those countries have not forgotten from which direction the threat to them has usually come from and the past losses and humiliations which resulted.

    When someone sees themselves as a benefactor to mankind but others see as a thief with a violent history there is always going to be room for a big understanding.

    Alan Thomas | 07 March 2015 at 03:44 PM

    Roy Robinson

    Perhaps, when it comes to China, the 'west' cannot see a solution, in which case hurling - or even simply registering - criticism might be seen as a waste of time and effort. In any case, since when did it make sense to ignore lesser villains simply because one can't take on the bigger ones?

    Steve Jones | 07 March 2015 at 03:11 PM

    I suspect the neocons are now looking at the General Patton play of outsourcing a war against Russia to Germany.

    Germany should leave the EU together with France and the PIGS using the euro as an excuse. Their departure might shake out a few others like Croatia, Hungary and Austria plus a few more. Let the banks fail then go in with Russia and the other BRICS.

    Edward Klimenko | 07 March 2015 at 02:04 PM

    @MikeB

    ' Are you so sure that Ukrainians wanted their now ex-president?'

    Almost twelve and a half million Ukrainians voted for him in 2010, and that is a far better indicator of what Ukrainians wanted than the actions of around ten thousand Nazi terrorists in February 2014.

    ' It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych'

    What a nonsensical and disingenuous remark. Yanukovich was the democratically -elected president(most likely the last that the Ukraine will ever have). EuroMaidan was an assembly of Nazi terrorists and their apologists. Europe used threats and blackmail to prevent Yanukovich from doing his duty and protecting the country from this violent mob. Europe then tricked him into signing a 'peace agreement' and pulling back the police from their positions, allowing the terrorist mob and its sponsors to rampage freely through Kiev and seize the institutions of the state.

    You will probably cite the lack of an immediate militant response to the putsch as proof that Ukrainians wanted this abomination of a government. Well, there we have democracy according to Mike! No need for elections, might makes right and proves the existence of an underlying consensus! Brilliant.

    Let's take your logic a bit further. The rebellion now rules in Donbass, and no armed movement has arisen there to demand the return of the region to Ukrainian rule. Do you accept this as evidence of the people's wish not to be ruled by the Maidan regime? If the rebels break the Ukrainian lines, and take control of the rest of the country, will you shrug and conclude that Ukrainians wanted to be with Russia after all?

    ' , I would prefer people to be aggressive with me by throwing money in my direction, rather than launching rockets,

    Throwing money at the Ukraine enables the Maidan regime to throw rockets at Ukrainian citizens. Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk have no legal authority to rule over anybody, yet your beloved EU insists that these putsch-installed thugs are the government of the Ukraine, and that all Ukrainians must obey them or die.

    ' Nothing the EU has done, though, justifies Russian military intervention in Ukraine'

    Everything the EU has done justifies everything Russia has done, and would justify a good deal more. The European officials who formulated European policy toward the Ukraine in the past year are responsible for the war and for all the crimes of the Maidan regime, and they should all face the death penalty - starting with Ashton.

    Think on this: if not for the Crimea operation, all the depravity that the Ukraine has heaped upon Donetsk would have been visited upon Crimea. You think that Crimeans would have been better off being shelled, shot, raped and tortured by the Ukrainian military? Go and tell them so!

    Just make sure that your health insurance covers reconstructive dentistry first.

    Paul Taylor | 07 March 2015 at 12:00 PM

    Hector. You clearly have no idea about Hitler and Germany in the late 1930s.Germany was just taking back land that was stolen in June 1919. Hitler had mass support from the Germanic people in those parts and in some areas such as parts of Austria he was even more popular than he was in Germany itself.

    It was madness that we went to war against Germany,we should have remained neutral like Spain or Switzerland and let Hitler defeat Stalin on his own.

    Paulus M | 07 March 2015 at 10:46 AM

    @ kevin 1

    "Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from view remain constant. But that's just my opinion."

    It all depends on whether the facts/evidence supports the hypothesis. If they don't then no matter how erudite it appears - it's wrong. What our media don't want you to question or look at is who started this conflict. From day one, I've never been in doubt that Washington is the main driver and the EU the junior partner. The Nato alliance acts as a bind and a figleaf. Time and again the facts sindicates that the "west" is an aggressor bloc which tramples over sovereignty and makes a mockery of supposed international law.

    Mr Rob | 07 March 2015 at 10:08 AM

    Are you claiming that prior to the "removal" of Yanukovych

    US Senator McCain did not appear at the Maidan,

    and that US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland did not appear at the Maidan,

    and that she did not hold a series of meetings with its leaders,

    and that she and US Ambassador Pyatt did not co-ordinate these efforts with a clear aim as to who they wanted to see in power (our man "Yats"),

    and that only days after Yanukovych fled,

    Yatseniuk was not shaking hands with US President Obama at the White House

    and that US Director of the CIA Brennan was not in Kiev?

    Do you claim that the US was leaving Ukraine to "sort out it's [sic] own issues"?

    Please do respond rather than lapse into silence, I'd be fascinated to see how you have reached your conclusions in the face of the known facts.

    Kevin 1 | 07 March 2015 at 09:27 AM

    @ Ronnie

    I think you'll find that, in circumstances such as those you describe, PH tends to quote the famous retort attributed to Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" I'm just surprised that he hasn't done so (yet) in this instance.

    Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from view remain constant. But that's just my opinion.

    N.Belcher | 07 March 2015 at 01:28 AM

    Dear Mr Hitchens

    In December 2011 The U.S Federal Reserve bailed out European banks to the
    tune of Billions of Dollars.
    It is reported that they tried to keep this bailout a secret at the time.

    Do you think that this , and the latest E.U initiative to have The Ukraine
    are linked ? i.e that it was a condition of the U.S bailout or expected of The
    E.U that they continue to expand into The Ukraine in return for these U.S Dollars?
    Yours N.Belcher.

    Roy Robinson | 07 March 2015 at 01:04 AM

    While the West obsesses about the supposed threat from Putin it seems totally oblivious to the rise of Xi Jinping a Chinese leader who looks like being of the magnitude of Mao.

    He has described himself as the leader of a party wedded to the ideology of Lenin, Stalin and Mao and is concentrating all the power in his own hands.

    There is no Western propaganda campaign against him yet although think about it, ten years ago there wasn't one against Putin.

    Xi has stated that he gets on well with Putin as they have similar personalities.

    Edward Klimenko | 06 March 2015 at 08:44 PM

    'Might there be the slightest chance of Ukrainians' wishes being given some consideration?'

    Capital idea. But you know what the Ukrainians wanted? They wanted Viktor Yanukovich as President and they wanted the Parliament they elected in 2012. What scant regard America and Europe gave their wishes!

    Bob | 06 March 2015 at 06:42 PM

    Ronnie that purported paper was presented in early Feb 2014 well after Maidan was underway, not exactly planned from day one. It was also Kiev at the behest of the US who started the ATO, resorting to violence away from the Franco-German and Russian negotiations.
    I might add the anti Russian propaganda in the media had started well before Sochi started. This was all planned a while back and not by Russia.

    Ian | 06 March 2015 at 03:49 PM

    It does not seem to me there is a "change of mind" or any inconsistency implied in Mr Hitchens's recommendation of Richard Sakwa's book. There may be a slight change of emphasis but it was always understood and mentioned that the US of A was an additional driving force to events in eastern Europe. It does not alter the validity of the view that the EU is "Germany by other means" and that the EU/Germany covets "lebensraum" in the east. So far as I can see, it can only be of academic interest whether the developing crisis is primarily EU or US led.

    Nor has Mr Hitchens ever attempted to exonerate President Putin or Russia, giving more than sufficient emphasis to "Russian interests" and "Russia's perceived sphere of influence" ... to crudely paraphrase. It does not matter if Russia is or is not entitled to these perceptions. That the perceptions exist should be a major consideration in the policy of any other "player" who would prefer a continued, peaceful existence.

    What is important is whether either side can afford to "back down" and which side is "most guilty" with regards creating this crisis. It seems fairly obvious that it is the US and the EU who can best afford to "back off"... and it is the US and the EU whose posturing and behavior have contributed most to the current situation.

    For those who adhere to the "bad Putin"/"Naughty Russia" model, rest assured that the US and the EU are unlikely to give up on this one. They are determined to give the big bad bear a spanking.

    I fear that they have got it badly wrong, seriously misjudged Russia's president and relied to heavily on dated intelligence about Russian capabilities.

    Posted by: Incognito | 06 March 2015 at 12:41 PM

    John,

    I think it's an oversight on PH's part (we're all human, right?) to have placed so much emphasis on Germany in his analysis of the the crisis, and, in so doing to have tacitly downplayed the role of the US. Plainly put Germany-although it is the de facto seat of power in the EU- doesn't have the brass to so flagrantly antagonise Russia without back-up.

    Moreover, if anyone doesn't think the EU is 'briefed' on foreign policy by the US state department, they are living in an alternate reality. America is a continuation of the British Empire by other means.

    Grant | 06 March 2015 at 12:23 PM

    Pat Davers "Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were genuinely dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine"

    I do wish people would study the comments made by the EU leaders when initial proposals for third way consultations with the Russians was proposed, they said things like "the last people we would speak to over this would be the Russians".

    The EU leaders detest everything Russia stands for, as they are enlightened supra nationalists. It was precisely their arrogant and dismissive attitude that led to armed conflict and only after thousands had died did they come to meet Putin in Russia to seek a peace.

    Pat Davers | 06 March 2015 at 11:46 AM

    "Are we witnessing a Hitchens change of mind?"

    I think we are seeing a shift of opinion as to who has the been the main driver behind the Ukraine conflict; it was not so much EU (ie German-led) expansionism as NATO (ie US-led) imperialism that brought us where we are now, as of course many people have been saying all along.

    Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were genuinely dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine, and are probably now regretting their actions. The fact that is was Merkel and Hollande who brokered the Minsk agreement without US involvement would seem to support this.

    Bob | 06 March 2015 at 10:51 AM

    Ronnie you have clearly have never done any scenario planning or read position papers, obviously the Kremlin would have several plans of action for the breakdown of the Ukraine. Regardless of the document's validity, the title is invalid. "Direct interstate relations" cannot exist between Moscow and regions annexed to Russia, the plan is obviously talking about a political breakup of Ukraine, not annexation. Even then though, i dont entirely believe it.

    If Russia's plan was to break up Ukraine into statelets, I see no reason why it still hasn't recognized the independence of LPR and DPR and instead continues to treat them, in both language and action, as regions of Ukraine seeking federalization. A federal and perhaps confederate Ukraine would obviously be to Russia's interest. Complete breakup of Ukraine -maybe but it's difficult to see how.

    Weak.

    Daniel | 06 March 2015 at 07:25 AM

    Dear Peter,

    Thank you for another thought-provoking article. It's nice to have some measured thinking amongst the media-mob's clamour.

    A little off the current topic but I was expecting to see a comment on the recent ACMD report in which the scientist's covering letter states: 'international evidence suggests many popular types of prevention activity are ineffective at changing behaviour, and a small number may even increase the risks for drug use' . Paradoxically, thought not unexpectedly, the report ends up stating the that the solution is more drugs education in schools.. Just thought it may be worth flagging as it reminded me of your previous posts regarding sex education and its supposed 'benefits'.

    S. Coleman | 05 March 2015 at 09:36 PM

    I would not be alone here in welcoming PH's recognition of the importance of the role of the US. I think Brian Meredith also expressed this view.

    Michael Hudson (the American economist) expresses it up pithily: the US is saying to Europe, 'Let's you and Russia fight' and Europe in going along with this invitation is damaging her own vital interests.

    Edward Klimenko | 05 March 2015 at 08:31 PM

    The Ukrainian Parliament has already moved 'Defender of the Fatherland Day' to October 14th - the official founding date of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If anybody thinks that this is a coincidence, they haven't been paying attention.

    This very Thursday the Parliament of Ukraine reached a milestone - honoring with a minute's silence the memory of UPA genocidaire Roman Shukhevich. I won't bother listing in detail the depravities that Shukhevich organised in his capacity as a UPA commander - suffice it to say that women and children were favourite targets, and blades were generally preferred to bullets - but those not familiar with the subject are encouraged to look it up. In particular, search the name 'Zygmunt Rumel' to find out what comes of trying to negotiate with Ukrainian nationalists.

    The only consolation is that the Maidan project is less a political movement than organised mental illness, and that failure is written in its DNA.

    [Mar 14, 2015] The Damage to U.S. Interests Abroad of Domestic Political Intemperance

    A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nation's interests. ...A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nations interests. ..."
    "... A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States. ..."
    "... instead the prevention of a second term for the incumbent U.S. president. ..."
    Mar 11, 2015 | The National Interest Blog

    The connection between the sort of behavior we are talking about and the standing of the United States overseas, however, is even broader than that and extends to the handling of domestic policy. Foreigners and foreign governments observe how the United States, the superpower with the world's largest economy, handles its own affairs, and they draw conclusions about how viable and reliable an interlocutor the United States would be on international matters. The foreigners are looking to see whether there is consistency and rationality in how the U.S. political system pursues U.S. national interests. If they do see those things, then the United States is someone they can do business with, whether as a rival or as an ally, even if U.S. interests differ from their own. If they do not see those things, then opportunities are lost for doing business that would benefit both the United States and the foreign state.

    A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nation's interests. As an outsider we encounter such situations in, say, Iraq, where sectarian loyalties and hatreds make it impossible to rely on a government in Baghdad consistently pursuing an Iraqi national interest. We also see it in Bangladesh, where the personal animosity between the "two begums" who head each of the major political parties there have made Bangladeshi politics so dysfunctional that in the recent past the military has had to step in.

    A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States. Foreigners could hear the then minority (now majority) leader of the United States Senate state a few years ago that his number one priority was not any particular U.S. national interest in either domestic or foreign affairs but instead the prevention of a second term for the incumbent U.S. president.

    Foreigners then were able to see the senator's party act along the same lines, using extortionate legislative methods to push a partisan agenda even at the expense of damaging the country's credit rating and causing disruptive interruptions to government operations. Once the same party achieved a majority in both houses of Congress there was much talk about how this would lead to newly responsible behavior, but the opening gavel of the new Congress had hardly fallen when once again there was the tactic of holding the operations of a government department hostage to press a specific partisan demand (this time on immigration) in opposition to the president's policies.

    [Mar 13, 2015] Obama letting neocons like Nuland runaround

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, March 13, 2015 at 12:13 pm
    Slightly refining my previous theory about Flip-Flop Obama letting neocons like Nuland runaround because it was easier to let them do it, maybe it is a leaf out of the British Empire playbook. Recall that Great Britain did not own India, but it was the British East India Company, a private company that did all the running but ultimately worked in British Interests. I would say that this is the same way they used the British Army where they encouraged buccaneerism when it brought riches for the Empire, but publicly disowned such soldiers if it all went Pete Tong – sic Francis Younghusband and Tibet, 1904.

    Nuland and co are only useful as long as they bring results, but there is now a long thread of epic failures from US adventurism that cannot be brushed off, not to mention a point I mentioned earlier, the US voting public is finally tired of foreign wars according to the polls. That would make the neocons toxic whether to Republicans or Democrats. And let us not kid ourselves that there is a gnat's crotchet* difference between their foreign policy objectives, apart from style and maybe emphasis.

    * I learned this from the epic BBC radio show, Just a Minute.

    [Mar 13, 2015] The Most Outlandish Empire Semantics

    Looks like the US elite decided that it's time for regime change in Venezuela
    Mar 13, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

    The government of the Unites States (GDP US$ 16,768,100 million) declares that the situation in Venezuela (GDP US$ 371,339 million):

    ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States

    This, the White House says, requires to:

    ... declare a national emergency to deal with that threat

    "Why," ask the Venezuelans, including the U.S. sponsored opposition, "do you think we are an unusual and extraordinary threat which requires you to declare a national emergency?

    "We do not believe for a moment that you are an unusual and extraordinary threat which requires us to declare a national emergency", is the answer:

    Officials in Washington said that declaring Venezuela a national security threat was largely a formality.

    "A formality?" ask Venezuelans. "Why is it a formality to see us as an unusual and extraordinary threat to your national security? That does not make sense. What's next? Will it be a simply a formality to kill us?"

    "It is formality needed to be able to sanction some of your government officials," an anonymous U.S. senior official explains. "To do so the law requires that we declare you to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security which requires us to declare a national emergency."

    "But we ain't no such threat. You yourself says so. So why would you sanction our officials when you yourself say that there is no real basis for this? On what legal grounds are you acting? Why these sanctions?"

    "Because the the situation in Venezuela ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States which requires us to declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

    "That is like declaring war on us. That does not make sense".

    "Well, it's just a formality."

    ---

    On might have hoped that the above would be the "most outlandish" nonsense the U.S. government could produce. But that is not yet the case.

    The Venezuelan President Maduro responded in the National Assembly:

    "The aggression and the threat of the government of the United States is the greatest threat that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, our country, has ever received," he said to applause, [...] "Let's close ranks like a single fist of men and women. We want peace."

    He spoke of past American military interventions in Latin America and warned that the United States was preparing an invasion and a naval blockade of Venezuela.

    "For human rights, they are preparing to invade us," he said, ...

    During the last 125 years the U.S. intervened in South America at least 56 times through military or intelligence operations. This ever intervening country is the same country that just declared Venezuela to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States that requires to declare a national emergency.

    It is certainly not outlandish for Maduro to believe that such a declaration will be followed by one of those continued interventions. Especially not when disguised U.S. officials travel around Venezuela and distribute money to opposition parties. Maduro is not alone in seeing the threat of another U.S. intervention. All South American nations have condemned the U.S. declaration and even pro-American opposition politicians in Venezuela were outraged about it.

    But for the ever anonymous U.S. officials it is the victim of their outlandish exaggerations that doth protest too much:

    "It's remarkable that the [Venezuelan] government can say the most outlandish things about the U.S. government - what is this, the 16th or 17th coup attempt that we're doing? And now we're invading?" the official said. "The shelf life of all of these accusations is what, a day or two? Even the dullest of media consumers is going to see that there is no invasion."

    Noting the U.S. doublespeak in this whole affair it advise to be very careful in believing that "there is no invasion" claim.

    Posted by b on March 12, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    nmb | Mar 12, 2015 11:31:02 AM | 1

    Venezuela: A plan for coup d'état and assassination of Maduro

    Wayoutwest | Mar 12, 2015 12:09:23 PM | 2

    I doubt the US is going to be invading or blockading Venezuela any time soon. This asinine proclamation was necessary for the increased sanctions the US has imposed and it is definitely a ratcheting-up of pressure and intimidation. It also appears to be designed to cause the Maduro government to overreact and institute decisions that can be demonized as harsh and undemocratic.

    I hope the people of Venezuela and the other progressive countries of SA are ready and willing to really confront these aggressive US moves.

    Dan | Mar 12, 2015 12:20:15 PM | 3

    The current government of Venezuela is a clear threat to the financial interests of the oligarchs who control the US government.

    Wayoutwest | Mar 12, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 11

    For me the most interesting part of the US proclamation was not the National Security threat but the claim of a threat to US Foreign Policy. This illustrates the power of the Bolivarian Revolution to sever much of SA from US dominance and the level of US Ruling Class fear because of their diminishing power and influence worldwide.

    Some Guy | Mar 12, 2015 3:02:11 PM | 16

    Ah yes. The old tried and true "making the economy scream" in preparation for a coup ploy. Venezuela has held out so far but I have confidence in The Empire®. Their psychopathic persistence should be able to turn that country into what Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia are--a chamber of fucking horrors.
    Piotr Berman | Mar 12, 2015 3:50:30 PM | 17
    As a geography Nazi, I would insists that the list that was linked showed only four cases of interventions in South America. Indeed, interventions in Central America and Caribbean are dime a dozen, and probably the count was partial, South America is more distant and the countries are a bit too large for open interventions. Diplomacy was almost always friendly to non-leftist military regimes or death squads, but a direct engagement like coordination of the attempt to depose Chavez by military means were rare.

    For some reason, it is almost 15 years that Jihad was declared in USA against Venezuela, and formal fatwa proclaimed on TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DykgMyTjWU4 (this video was from 2009, when Rev. Robertson wonder why Chavez was not assassinated yet). Since USA is a democracy, and the people are Christian, it is a duty of the government to follow the will of the Christian folks and at least attempt to execute fatwas of Christian clerics. However, I do not know enough about Robertson's Christianity to figure out how the fatwa came about.

    diogenes | Mar 12, 2015 4:04:41 PM | 19
    According to a link from the website of TeleSUR, a Venezuelan television station, on Feb. 28, 2015 an employee of NED (ie American agent) travelled to Venezuela for a secret meeting with opposition figures (ie bought and paid for greedy foreign stooges) to settle an argument about the distribution of millions of dollars previously contributed by NED.

    The agent used a forged or stolen passport in a false name, and disguised her appearance to match with the photo in the passport; and travelled to the meeting in a vehicle with forged or stolen plates.

    This agent, whose real name is Sarah Kornblith, a few months previously had written an article in NED's "scholarly journal" denouncing the Chavez and Maduro regimes and also:

    "lauding the political arrangement that existed in Venezuela before Chavez. Known as the Punto Fijo Pact, under that system, two traditional parties would alternate in power, deliberately excluding the voices of Venezuela's poor majority."

    You mean like Democrats and Republicans? You can't make this stuff up!

    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/NED-Official-Meets-With-Venezuelan-Opposition-Figures-20150312-0007.html

    lysias | Mar 12, 2015 5:43:03 PM | 22

    I'm just now reading a book about Gen. Vernon Walters, Der Drahtzieher: Vernon Walters -- Ein Geheimdienstgeneral des Kalten Krieges, by Klaus Eichner and Ernst Langrock, which details all the coups and secret chicanery that general was involved in, both in Latin America and in Europe.

    Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 12, 2015 11:40:14 PM | 29

    In 2002 I thought Chavez was toast. Given the last century of US intervention in South America it seemed obvious that Chavez would be over thrown by the US. But then the war in Iraq went very badly. The US was was distracted and had to focus its energy on the Iraq war. Chavez was spared the focus of US imperialism. For some time I thought the silver lining in the failed US war in Iraq was that it distracted our interests away from South America. This permitted a number of Latin American countries to drift away from US influence, not just Venezuela but also Bolivia and Nicaragua and some of the other countries elected left wing governments.

    The US has spent the last century trying to prevent governments arising that actually represent all of the people and not just the upper middle classes that are eager to please US corporations. I think what we are seeing today is that the US is now refocusing on South America and are willing to devote resources towards removing those governments that have arisen that attempt to represent the poor and not just the bourgeois elements. This has been happening over the last few years. In Obama's first few years he threw his support (behind the scenes as it developed) behind the Honduran upper classes that removed the popularly elected government of Manunel Zelaya.

    In any case, I think the Manuela government in Venezuela is going to be deposed through US intervention and next will be the government in Bolivia. And there is little that the rest of world can do to stop it. After all, the Monroe Doctrine has given the US that right and there is no outside force that can stop us unless they are willing to engage in nuclear war.

    However, the more the US flexes its muscle in Latin America, the less effective it will be in pushing its policies in Ukraine and towards the 'pivot to Asia' that was supposed to be one of Obama's signature policies. And this is not to mention Obama's efforts for more war in Iraq and Syria. So to the extent that Venezuela might suffer today other parts of the world will be provided some respite from US attention. The US is thoroughly over committed.

    [Mar 12, 2015] Eurosceptics playing into Vladimir Putin's hands, says Labour

    Mar 12, 2015 | The Guardian

    ID5868758 12 Mar 2015 00:49

    I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today had the advice of that "evil Putin" been followed by the "exceptional Americans" and their allies. He was opposed to the war in Iraq. He was opposed to the attacks on Ghaddafi and Liibya, but overruled by Medvedev, who was president at the time. And of course he was against the US and their obsessive campaign against secular Assad and Syria.

    But somehow we are supposed to believe that this man is the danger in the world, that everything would be fine and dandy if we could just get rid of Putin? Please.

    Me109BfG6 11 Mar 2015 19:58

    Stop better the mad house of s.c. "Ukraine". Until you can't find it on a map, you can't argue anything. I personally know a brigade of house constructors of 6 persons, of which 2 are Ukrainians and who have procured their passports somewhere is the Baltics for money. Now, do realize how you would once have to notice those 45 M Ukrainians standing on all street crossings in the UK and in the EU as well while beggaring. Yes, do realize that instead of any abstract demagogy and propaganda insulting Russia and Putin along with all the Russians in the s.c. "Ukraine". Stop the Nazis over there instead. The West Ukraine will elong to the Poland. The East Ukraine will belong to Russia or remain independent in order to speak freely Russian instead of that South Russian dialect called "Ukrainian" which is spoken - to the Forbes - by some 17% of the whole population in Ukraine only.

    T_Wallet 11 Mar 2015 18:46

    This article is nonsense. If there was no such thing as NATO then maybe it would have a credible point.

    The EU is about as Democratic as Russia. Both want, like US and China, to extend their spheres of influence. Empires by other names.

    JoseArmando0 -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 01:24

    Money money money only thing yanks understand cant take it with you in the end anyway poetic justice

    HARPhilby -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 16:04

    Rockefeller and JP Morgan financed hitler in 1929, 1931 and 1933. Read free pamphlet HITLER'S SECRET BACKERS by Sidney Warberg which came out in Holland in 1933 and was suppressed after 4 days.

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Warburg_Hitler's%20Secret%20Backers.pdf

    vr13vr -> Damocles59 11 Mar 2015 14:31

    UN chapter or not, but not everything in life is done according to legal interpretations. It's shouldn't be about bunch of lawyers arguing about legalese, it's about 10 million people. Why does UN chapter give more rights to 1.5 million people in Lithuania than to 10 million people in Donbass and South Ukraine?

    It's about principles, not about legalese.

    irishmand -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 11:11

    The largest trading partners of both China and India: the EU and the US.

    But not the exclusive partners. India and China will continue to trade with everybody. They are making honest money and don't care about US ambitions for world domination and its bad habit of toppling governments.

    Don't take me wrong, I don't hate americans. The most of you are just brain washed regular citizens. It is not your fault, except for what you allowed your government to do with your school system. But I also see the extremism is growing in american society and that is the result of people being told about how exceptional they are comparing to the rest of the world. Germans started the same way in 30's...

    anewdawn 11 Mar 2015 10:19

    Listen to the Victoria Nuland tapes.
    Other evidence that the Ukraine is a US military coup

    And more from the Guardian.

    Russian aggression from the Blairites is about as believeable as Iraqs weapons of mass distraction.
    I am a Labour supporter - I feel ashamed of them. They should be kicked out just like militant was - and for much better reasons - lies and war criminality. The Libdems and Tories are no better.

    Ross Vassilev -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:56

    Jezzam, you're either an idiot or a liar. NO ONE in the US wants a war with Russia except the neo-cons in Washington. And the dismembering of Serbia is proof that not all countries are entitled to territorial integrity, including Ukraine.

    Ross Vassilev jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:52

    At least Russia is only invading neighboring countries. There's hardly a country in the world the US hasn't bombed or invaded.


    Калинин Юрий Bosula 11 Mar 2015 09:22

    The guys there always need somebody to blame. They have to justify their existence by pointing their fingers to an enemy. The enemy unites the nation and you can sell to this nation all kind of junk as a needed stuff to fight this enemy.

    People love to believe is some mystic junk - invisible Russian threat, coup theory of communists in Moscow against Washington DC, etc.


    igoraki Sceptical Walker 11 Mar 2015 08:14

    Would like to recommend you a book to read, "L'Europe est morte à Pristina" by Jacques Hogard.You can learn a lot about all the good West and NATO did on Kosova and also you will see how the Albanians treated Serbs once our army retreated from Kosova.


    madeiranlotuseater jezzam 11 Mar 2015 08:03

    I am NOT a Kremlin supporter. The corruption sponsored by the state at home in Russia is appalling.
    That is not my point. The USA has intervened in countless countries since the end of WW2. The problems in Ukraine are of the USA's making. It hasn't gone well for you. Europe (apart from Desperate Dave) doesn't want to use your hawkish methods to achieve a solution. How lovely of you to believe that you can have a war in our back yard. People such as Merkel and Hollande almost certainly did not get it okayed by your lot. More probably they told you how is was going to be, so get used to it.

    America believes that killing people is the answer to find peace. It isn't.


    Babeouf 11 Mar 2015 07:26

    Well who would have guessed it the the Labour Party doesn't recognize US imperialism anywhere on planet earth. And if Labour form a government and the US/Iran negotiations fail they will happily join the next US coalition of the Shilling. On the substantive point apparently the I.MF won't loan Ukraine the billions of Euros unless the truce holds together. Now that really does help Vlad'the West is led by US sycophants and outright morons' Putin. But so has the entire US coup in Ukraine. There certainly is some Russian agent helping to formulate US State Department policy.


    Orangutango 11 Mar 2015 07:14

    It is utterly incoherent for our prime minister to call for tougher European action against President Putin in one breath and then threaten to leave the EU in the next. Security is the unspoken dimension of this European debate.

    "This is no time for democratic nations to consider breaking from their allies. While Eurosceptics crave the breaking of ties to the EU, the security situation demands common action and resolve."


    The Origin of the 'New Cold War'


    http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/origin-new-cold-war/

    Eric Zuesse


    decaston 11 Mar 2015 04:57

    Euroscepticism (sometimes Euroscepticism or Anti-EUism) is the body of criticism of the European Union (EU), and opposition to the process of political European integration, existing throughout the political spectrum.
    A survey in 2012, conducted by TNS Opinion and Social on behalf of the European Commission, showed that, for the European Union overall, those who think that their country's interests are looked after well in the EU are now in a minority (42%) About 31% of EU citizens tend to trust the European Union as an institution, and about 60% do not tend to trust it. Trust in the EU has fallen from a high of 57% in 2007 to 31% in 2012, while trust in national governments has fallen from 43% in 2007 to 28% in 2012.
    Trust in the EU is lowest in the United Kingdom (16% trust, 75% distrust)

    Spain is ranked the second most distrustful of the European Union, making it one of the three most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, along with the UK and Greece. 72 per cent of the Spanish people do not trust the EU, comparing to only 23% that trust this Union.
    Portugal is the 8th most eurosceptic country in the European Union (not counting with Croatia) as shown by the "The Continent-wide rise of Euroscepticism", with 58% of the people tending not to trust the EU, behind Greece (81%), Spain (72%), UK (75%), Cyprus (64%), Sweden (62%), Czech Republic (60%) and Germany (59%).[57] The Eurosceptic parties currently hold 24 out of 230 seats in the parliament. The Euroscepticism of the left wing prevails in Portugal.
    The Irish people voted no to initial referendums on both the Nice and Lisbon Treaties. There were second referendums held on both of these issues, and it was then, following renegotiations that the votes were swayed in favour of the respective 'Yes' campaigns.
    In relation to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties, the decision to force second referendums has been the subject of much scrutiny and widespread criticism. It is claimed that rejection of the Irish peoples decision to vote no stands testament to the European Union's lack of regard for democracy and lack of regard for the right of people of nation states to decide their futures.
    In Italy The Five Star Movement (M5S), an 25.5% of vote in the 2013 general election, becoming the largest anti-establishment and Eurosceptic party in Europe. The party also in 2013 the party was particularly strong in Sicily, Liguria and Marche, where it gained more than 30% of the vote.
    In France in the European Parliament election, 2014, the National Front won the elections with 24.85% of the vote, a swing of 18.55%, winning 24 seats, up from 3 previously.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism


    Ilja NB Tom20000 11 Mar 2015 03:32

    You can't even clean up your own mess ( Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, former Yougoslavia ).


    Parangaricurimicuaro PlatonKuzin 11 Mar 2015 03:28

    Victoria Nuland is looking for a way out for her and her politics (save face). She realizes that Europe is not happy with the way that the State Department hijacked the whole Ukrainian crisis


    Budanevey 11 Mar 2015 03:22

    The emergence of Redneck Labour is one of the genuine mysteries of our politics that historians will one day ponder, a Party that adopted American Sub Prime finance, State Department Foreign Policy, neo-liberal corporatism, neo-con wars, NSA total surveillance, waterboarding, secret prisons, secret justice, indefinite detention, Anglophobia, TTIP and a de facto Eurodollar, and now the fear tactics of Commies and Terrorists everywhere to keep us servile to the interests of Washington and their agenda for an expanding US empire via a cloned United States of Europe, fears that were similarly misused during the Cold War when the American umbrella was first being used to envelop us.

    Didn't Labour learn anything from WW2 when we went to war to protect Polish independence, only to have Washington give it to Stalin, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, and then surrender our own commonwealth and independence to Washington's creature in Brussels? Who is pulling the strings when we see demands for the UK to subordinate its interests to EU expansion in the East, just as we see northern Eurozone interests being compromised to keep hold of southern Europe - Washington.

    The largest country on Earth, Russia, has long been a sub prime performer because of its own extreme history of imperialism and arbitrary government, which makes it an investors' nightmare and a paradise for corporate, criminal and political gangsterism preying on its long-suffering people and their unfortunate neighbours. The Yeltsin Privatisation era following the White Revolution compounded the problem by making new oligarchies and dubious billionaires, leading to the latest twist in Putinism.

    The answer to these differing examples and extremes of imperialism is not to join in new imperialisms, but to re-assert the value of honesty and accountability in business, government, the rule of law, and international relations. Redneck Labour has completely lost the plot.

    madeiranlotuseater 11 Mar 2015 03:21

    Soap Box Dave really believes he can hold onto power by scaring Europe into believing there is a threat from Russia. Past UK Premiers have done well with wars, Maggie, John and Tony all got re-elected. But Dave pitched for free flights on Air Force One and sucking up to POTUS whilst many of us felt that the whole game plan in Ukraine was of the CIA making. Poke the Bear enough and you will get a response. Germany and France saw through this and quickly side lined Davy and Kerry. Result: Dave, at a stroke, has reduced Britain's influence in the world to little more than not a lot.

    elias_ 11 Mar 2015 02:19

    All organisations are judged on the results of their actions. In the court of world opinion we can apply this logic to states. So let's see:
    1. Iraq. We lied, killed a million people and now it is haven for Isis.
    2. Libya. Far far worse now than under gadafi.
    3. Syria. We wanted war but putin stopped it.
    4. Egypt. Worse now than when we intervened.
    5. Ukraine. Supporting neocon Victoria f*** the EU nuland doing violent regime change on Russia's borders and expecting Russia to sit idly by. Yes the protests were about oligarchy but then got hijacked by hired goons without which power would have transitioned peacefully.

    Q. Is it any wonder we are losing credibility outside the west? Especially as many of these actions went without UN approval.


    Peter Schmidt UncleSam404 11 Mar 2015 02:14

    There is no British 'foreign policy'. They do as the US says.


    irishmand jezzam 11 Mar 2015 02:13

    Proof that Putin planned to annex Crimea and invade E Ukraine before Yanukovych was deposed.

    Who said it is truth, it is propaganda, I don't believe a word of this bull.... The western media lied so many times, there is no credibility.


    irishmand SystemD 11 Mar 2015 02:10

    One might ask you for proof of CIA plots, except that there is none. Are you prepared to provide the same standard of proof of your allegations that you demand of others?

    One might. We got Crimea, that's right. And Russia is helping the rebels. Well, US is helping the nazies in Kiev, so to make the chances equal...
    Now, CIA What was CIA director doing when he was secretly visiting Ukraine? A vacation... And those CIA operatives in Kiev Speigel wrote about? A vacation...


    Калинин Юрий jezzam 11 Mar 2015 01:48

    Putin sending his troops to Ukraine? Then you know way much more then CIA, MI-5, Mossad, etc all together. Finally all these countries do not have to spent billions on the intelligence since you alone do all the job and have all the possible evidences to present to the world.

    By the way yesterday the Russian troops used secret space waves on the drivers in Ukraine so 2 of British old APC's are out of service and in a ditch outside the road. This is the proof of the Russian regular army and thousands of dead Russian soldiers as well as billions of wounded in the Russian hospitals. Russia sends trains to Donetsk to take out all of them and OSCE at the border crossing station inspect them together with the Ukranian customs. Those, that have no chances to escape are captured by the Ukranian army and been exchanged for the Ukranian soldiers in front of hundreds of journalists. Anyway, Russian army is the most invisible army in the world.


    Goodthanx 11 Mar 2015 01:20

    According to McFadden, are we to presume that like NATO, one of the EU functions was/is the 'containment' of Russia?

    A sign of EU immaturity is that member countries cant voice independent views and questions of sovereignty, without the scaremongers reducing their arguments to todays bogey man, Putin.


    irishmand jezzam 10 Mar 2015 23:43

    What you say is entirely true, To Kremlin supporters though, facts don't have any objective reality. They believe that facts are simply tools in the propaganda campaign. Thus in their eyes inventing "facts" is perfectly OK. They believe that the West does it as well - the depth of cynicism in Russia is hard to fathom.

    What facts were invented?
    ultra right coup in Kiev supported by US
    bombardments of Donbass civilians by Kiev
    relentless russophobic campaign in US and EU
    Nuland saying F...the EU
    Nazi elements in the Ukranian government
    Crime voting to join Russia


    BorninUkraine irishmand 10 Mar 2015 23:36

    The objective of current US propaganda campaign is to prevent EU and Russia from cooperating to the point of creating a credible US competitor. As you could have noticed, this BS for European consumption works admirably: Europe just lost its last chance of becoming something of consequence.


    irishmand MentalToo 10 Mar 2015 22:50

    It is only an expense to Russia preventing other urgent investments to improve living conditions of the people in Russia. Russian leaders urgently needs to realize cooperation based on mutual respect of both sovereignty of nations as well as civil rights of individuals is the only way to improve relations to Europeans countries. Trying to use military force either directly or by coercion harms Russia more than anything. Russia is not in a competition to win over it neighbor states. Russia's mission is to win over it's own past through gaining trust of it's neighbors by peaceful cooperation.

    It is a declaration of good will, which, unfortunately, is not supported by any actions in reality.
    What have US/EU did recently:

    • organized a coup in Ukraine,
    • imposed sanctions,
    • unleashed shameless wild russophobic propaganda campaign in the media,
    • issued countless insults about Russians and their President.

    Where is the mutual respect you are talking so much about? Where is your freedom of speech?
    How can Russians trust you when you behave like bunch of liars and bullies, threatening to destroy Russia and celebrating every time something bad happens in Russia?
    To get respect from Russia you have to show your respect too.
    What saved Russia from american/NATO invasion? The very same army and the nuclear weapons. If it wouldn't be for them, americans would attack 6-8 months ago.
    So, before you start teaching Russia manners turn around and look in the mirror of your society. You are not a democracy anymore. You became a bunch of power drunk, profit greedy warmongers who only understand "I want" and ready to sacrifice other people's lives in other countries for your personal well being.

    [Mar 12, 2015] This Is a Declaration of War by Bruce K. Gagnon

    March 12, 2015 | informationclearinghouse

    At times I feel completely overwhelmed by the current US-NATO military operations aimed at Russia. It's growing rapidly - one can't help but wonder if the recent 'victory' of the self-defensive forces in eastern Ukraine wasn't allowed by Washington and Kiev as a way to get public opinion behind the already well established plans for even more NATO escalation.

    It's all just far too neat and tidy to be seen otherwise. This is not a conspiracy but a well designed military plan to take down Moscow. They are playing with fire. In some respects the 'project' is now impossible to stop. The question for the moment is how long will this attack on Russia go on and what level of conflict will result? Will it go nuclear? If so the world is fucked.

    The Pentagon role now is to send legions of NATO trainers into Ukraine to "push Kiev's [reluctant] troops forward" in order to "deter Russian aggression." It's a long term military operation that is going to be exceedingly expensive. It's got to be sold to the American people and folks throughout Europe. In order to make this public relations campaign successful the perpetrators have to flip the switch - turn the story ass backwards - blame the other side for doing what US-NATO are in fact doing.

    The source of the aggression is quite clear to me. US-NATO are all over Russia's border. I learned today that the current right-wing Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves grew up in New Jersey and went to Columbia University. It's funny how the US is able to continually put their agents into office in key nations around the world.

    Go back to post WW II and note how fascist Syngman Rhee lived in the US and was then put in power in South Korea to ensure Washington's control. Recall the many fascist dictators that the US repeatedly put in place in Vietnam, Iran, Indonesia and throughout Latin America and the African continent. It's called good corporate planning.

    More recently in 2008 we saw Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili (also trained in the US at George Washington University) launch an attack on Russian speaking republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia along Russia's border. Russia responded to the Georgian military strike against the people there by counter-attacking Georgia. The fighting took place in the strategically important Transcaucasia region which borders the Middle East.

    I'll never forget watching the first US politician to arrive in Georgia after the 2008 shooting war subsided. It was then Sen. Joe Biden who made that visit, just months before being selected as Obama's running mate. Biden came back slinging much anti-Russian rhetoric and most importantly threatened Russia with dire consequences if it did not do as instructed by Washington and Brussels. Biden of course also led the effort in the Senate to send more weapons and US military 'trainers' to Georgia. So this is all a familiar story.

    Just this morning NPR (National Public Radio) had an interview with a Russian woman who 'fingered' Putin as the one who called for the killing of Boris Nemtsov this past weekend in Moscow. It's all so damn convenient - the pieces just keep tumbling into place as the case is made for war with Russia in order to contain the 'evil Putin'. Can you see Manuel Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), and Muammar Qaddafi (Libya) all over again? It's a tried and true twisting of the truth in order to set up supposed 'obstacles' for take down. It's always sold though as the mighty super-moral US swooping in to protect 'freedom and democracy'. Walt Disney couldn't have done this any better.

    The US-NATO expansion of the conflict in Ukraine is indeed a declaration of war against Russia. And from what I can make out the Russian people see the writing on the wall - they can hear the train coming. Sadly the American people have no clue what is going on nor do most of those in Europe.

    This project has been set up with criminal precision. After all the CIA and the Pentagon have had alot of practice over the years. This is what Washington does best.

    Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He offers his own reflections on organizing and the state of America's declining empire. http://space4peace.blogspot.ca/

    [Mar 12, 2015] NATO Lies and Provocations by MIKE WHITNEY

    Mar 12, 2015 | CounterPunch

    ... ... ...

    While it's easy to get swept up in the Spiegel's narrative of a rabid militarist dragging Europe closer to World War 3, the storyline is intentionally misleading. As anyone who's been following the Ukraine fiasco for the last year knows, there's nothing particularly unusual about Breedlove's distortions. Secretary of State John Kerry has made similar claims numerous times as have many others in the major media. The lies about "Russian aggression" are the rule, not the exception. So why has the Spiegel decided to selectively target Breedlove who is no more deceitful than anyone else? What's really going on here?

    Clearly, the Spiegel is doing Merkel's work, that is, undermining the credibility of Washington's chief commander in Europe in order to discourage further escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. But while Merkel wants to humiliate Breedlove to show that Germany will not sit on its hands while Washington plunges the region into the abyss; she has also shown considerable restraint in limiting her attack to the General while sparing Kerry and Obama any embarrassment. This is quite an accomplishment given that –as we said earlier–virtually everyone in the political establishment and the media have been lying nonstop about every aspect of the conflict. Merkel doesn't want to discredit these others just yet, although the Spiegel piece infers that she has the power to do so if the "bad behavior" persists.

    The Spiegel article is part of a one-two punch designed to force Washington to change its confrontational approach. The second jab appeared late Sunday afternoon when EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that Europe needed to field its own army. Here's the story from Reuters:

    "The European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats as well as restore the bloc's foreign policy standing around the world, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told a German newspaper on Sunday…

    "With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighboring state.

    "One wouldn't have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values." (Juncker calls for EU army, says would deter Russia, Reuters)

    Can you see what's going on? On the one hand, the Spiegel delivers a hammer-blow to the credibility of NATO's top officer and on the other, the President of the EU Commission blindsides US powerbrokers by announcing a plan to create an independent EU fighting force that will render NATO redundant. These are big developments that have undoubtedly left the Obama troupe reeling. This is a full-blown assault on NATO's role as the primary guarantor of EU regional security. Maybe the European people are gullible enough to accept Junker's absurd claim that an EU army will "send an important message to the world", but you can be damn sure that no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue believes that nonsense. The move is clearly designed to send a message to Washington that Europe is fed up with NATO and wants a change. That means it's "shape up or ship out time" for Breedlove and his ilk.

    Ironically, these developments align Merkel with Putin's view of things as stated in his famous Munich speech in 2007 when he said:

    "I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue … The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way … And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, 43rd Munich Security Conference, 2007)

    How can the US possibly cast itself as "steward of the global security system", when its interventions have left a trail of decimated failed states from the southernmost border of Somalia to the northern tip of Ukraine, a chaotic swathe of smoldering ruin and agonizing human suffering that rivals the depredations of the Third Reich.

    Europe's security requirements cannot be met by a belligerent, warmongering US-controlled entity that acts solely in Washington's interests. At present, NATO gets 75% of its funding from the US, which is why the alliance is less interested in peacemaking and security than it is in internationalizing its imperial war of aggression across the planet. Prior to the crisis in Ukraine, European leaders didn't see the danger of this idiotic arrangement (even though interventions in Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan should have brought them to their senses) But now that NATO's recklessness could vaporize Europe in a nuclear firestorm, leaders like Merkel and Hollande are starting to change their tune. Keep in mind, the ideal scenario for the US would be a limited war that levels large parts of the European and Asian continents, thus restoring the US to its post WW2 heyday when the "rubblized" world was Washington's oyster. That would be just fine for genocidal maniacs and armchair warriors who rule the globe from the safety of their well-stocked DC bunkers. But for Europe, this is definitely not a winning strategy. Europe doesn't want a war, and it certainly doesn't want to be used as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the dystopian NWO.

    Putin advisor, Sergei Glazyev, figured out what Washington was up to long before Kiev launched its wretched "anti terrorism" campaign against federalist rebels in the East. Here's how he summed it up:

    "The main task the American puppet masters have set for the (Kiev) junta is to draw Russia into a full-scale war with Ukraine. It is for this purpose that all of these heinous crimes are committed – to force Russia to send troops to Ukraine to protect the civilian population…

    The bankruptcy of the US financial system, which is unable to service its foreign debt, the lack of investments to finance a breakthrough to a new technological order and to maintain America's competitiveness, and the potential defeat in the geopolitical competition with China.

    To resolve these problems, Americans need a new world war." (Sergei Glazyev)

    Bingo. The steadily-declining empire, whose share of global GDP continues to shrivel with every passing year, has wanted a war from the get go. That's the only way that the US can reverse its precipitous economic slide and preserve its lofty spot as the world's only superpower. Fortunately, EU leaders are beginning to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to grasp what's going on and change their behavior accordingly.

    It's worth noting, that no one in the Merkel administration or anyone else for that matter, has publicly challenged the allegations in the Spiegel article. Why is that, do you think?

    Doesn't their silence suggest that they knew all along that all the anti-Putin propaganda hullabaloo was pure bunkum; that "evil" Putin didn't send tanks and soldiers across the border into Ukraine, that Putin didn't shoot down Malaysian Airline 17, that Putin didn't have a political opponent gunned down gangland style just a few hundred yards from the Kremlin? Isn't that what their silence really says?

    Of course, it does. The reason no one in power has spoken out is because –as the Spiegel cynically admits–"A mixture of political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary."

    "Propaganda is necessary"?

    Whoa. Now there's an admission you're not going to see in the media too often. But it's the truth, isn't it? The Euro-leaders have been going along with the lies to keep the public in line. In other words, it's a healthy dose of perception management for the sheeple, but the unvarnished truth for our revered overlords. Sounds about right. Only now these ame elites have decided to share the facts with the lumpen masses. But, why? Why this sudden willingness to share the truth?

    It's because they no longer support Washington's policy, that's why. No one in Europe wants the US to arm and train the Ukrainian army. No one wants them to deploy 600 paratroopers to Kiev and increase US logistical support. No one wants further escalation, because no one wants a war with Russia. It's that simple.

    For the first time, EU leaders, particularly Merkel, understand that the United States' strategic objectives (the pivot to Asia) do not align with those of the EU, in fact, Washington's geopolitical ambitions pose a serious threat to Europe's security. Regrettably, it's not enough for Merkel to simply understand what is going on. She needs to huddle with her EU colleagues and take positive steps to derail Washington's plan now, otherwise the US will continue its incitements and false flags until Putin is forced to respond. Once that happens, a broader and, perhaps, catastrophic conflagration will be unavoidable.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

    [Mar 10, 2015] Vladimir Putin describes secret meeting when Russia decided to seize Crimea by Agence France-Presse

    Mar 09, 2015 | theguardian.com

    NotRevJimJones

    I should have read the comments before posting mine. The extent of russophobia is mad, like when the pot was being stirred for the invasion of Iraq.

    But then, Putin is the new Hitler, just like Saddam was.

    As my maternal grandmother would have stated, all youse antiputinistas are feckin eejits...

    normankirk -> NotRevJimJones 1h ago

    Apparently you can fool most of the people most of the time
    You'd think theyd learn!

    TOR2000
    A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it.
    The poll was conducted on January 16-22, 2015
    http://www.unian.info/politics/1040281-poll-82-of-crimeans-support-annexation.html

    NotRevJimJones -> TOR2000

    Begorrah! Yis talking sense, so the eejits are sure to ignore yer... TOR2000

    Has someone hoped that sanctions would change Russia's behavior? Fire your advisers, Russia's anti-American fever goes beyond the Soviet era's: More than 80 percent of Russians now hold negative views of the United States, according to the independent Levada Center, a number that has more than doubled over the past year and that is by far the highest negative rating since the center started tracking those views in 1988.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-anti-us-sentiment-now-is-even-worse-than-it-was-in-soviet-union/2015/03/08/b7d534c4-c357-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html
    The anger seems different from the fast-receding jolts of the past, observers say, having spread faster and wider.

    The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else."

    NotRevJimJones -> TOR2000, 46m ago

    Justified antiamericanism, no?

    NotRevJimJones, 2h ago

    The military operation was initially kept secret and despite the increasingly obvious actions of unmarked Russian forces on the ground, Moscow insisted that only locals were involved in the upheaval. Later, the Kremlin conceded that it had been behind the power grab.

    This is false. Repeatedly, translations from Russian to English are manipulated to imply emphasis that is not apparent in the original Russian.
    Crimean opolchenie blockaded Ukrainian military installations, with Russian forces ensuring there was no conflagration, and once Crimeans voted for secession, 70% of Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea chose to transfer to Russian authority. All the Kremlin admitted to was the deployment of forces to ensure the peaceful transfer of authority from rejected Kiev, first to Simferopol, and then by referendum, to Moscow.
    Of course this accorded with the wishes of the Kremlin, but to puncture the conspiracy theorists' wild accusations, this transfer of authority happened to concur with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Crimea.

    So, ultimately, we have a populace, Crimeans, who are overwhelmingly Russian, who overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia, who have by plebiscite become part of Russia, and have avoided the carnage of Donbass because, unlike in Donbass, Russian forces were in situ to stop Kiev's punitive attacks.

    And this is a bad thing?

    normankirk -> NotRevJimJones, 1h ago

    Well said.
    NotRevJimJones -> normankirk, 49m ago
    Yet no matter how frequently the obvious is stated, it feels like pissing in the wind...

    luc001, 2h ago

    Ukrainian commies did not take a vote to Annex Crimea from Russia, so none is required to Re-Unite Crimea with Russia.

    Kaiama, 7h ago

    The other side's point of view...via yandex machine translation superior to google.

    According to the Russian President, "the ultimate goal was to give people the opportunity to Express their opinion about how they want to live". "We are the results of the referendum know", - said Vladimir Putin.

    MOSCOW, 9 Mar RIA Novosti. Russian President Vladimir Putin told the details of the events of March last year, when the result of the referendum Crimea was joined to Russia. In the documentary "the Crimea. The way Home", a fragment of which showed the channel "Russia 1", he told me that shortly before the referendum conducted a sociological survey to find out how the idea of returning to the Russian Federation are Crimeans themselves.

    "It turned out that those wishing to join Russia there 75% of the total composition. You understand, was held closed poll, outside the context of a possible accession. It became evident to me that if we get to it, the level or amount of those who would like to this historic event has occurred, will be much higher," said the Russian President.

    "The ultimate goal was to give people the opportunity to Express their opinion about how they want to live.... I thought to myself, if people want, then so be it. It means that they will be there with greater autonomy, with some rights, but as part of the Ukrainian state. So let it be. But if they choose differently, then we can't leave them! We are the results of the referendum know. And we did as you were obliged to do," said Putin.

    Crimea and Sevastopol became the Russian regions after held there in March 2014 referendum in which the majority of residents were in favour of joining the Federation. According to the Treaty of accession, all residents of Crimea are recognized as citizens of Russia, wrote a statement that I want to leave the citizenship of Ukraine. According to the FMS, the disclaimer from Russian citizenship filed only 3 427 people. Just Crimea is home to about 2 million people. Kiev, despite the results of the referendum, still considers the Crimea territory.

    Crimea did not recognize the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian authorities decided to hold a referendum on the future of the region. The vote was held on 16 March 2014. In the Bulletin were made to two questions: "are You for the reunification of the Crimea with Russia on the rights of the subject of the Russian Federation?" and "are You for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and over the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?"

    The majority of voters (96,77%) when appearing in 83.1% of voted for reunification with Russia. The corresponding agreement was signed on 18 March, he was subsequently approved by the state Duma and the Federation Council. They also took the Federal constitutional law on the formation of two new subjects of the Russian Federation - Republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed both documents. Previously, Putin said that the referendum in Crimea is consistent with international law and the UN Charter.

    [Mar 10, 2015] A Europe-U.S. Divorce Over Ukraine

    Mar 10, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

    The German government finally wakes up, a little bit at least, and recognizes the obvious fact that U.S. neocons want to drag Europe into a war. It is now openly blaming certain circles within the U.S. government and NATO of sabotaging the Minsk ceasefire agreement. Especially offensive is the fantasy talk of U.S. and NATO commander General Breedlove:

    For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

    The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

    But Breedlove hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.

    Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel's diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove's bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

    The U.S., including Obama, wants to strengthen the U.S. run NATO and thereby its influence in Europe. And Europe, by losing business with Russia and risking war, is supposed to pay for it.

    The German public, despite tons of transatlantic propaganda, has well understood the game and the government can not escape that fact. It has to come back to some decent course and if that means trouble with Washington so be it. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and the U.S. are currently meeting in Paris and Secretary of State Kerry will not like what he will hear:

    In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing goals.

    Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow's influence in the region and destabilize Putin's power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow.

    Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government and leader then the largely liberal Putin.

    The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States. If production capabilities in Europe get destroyed through war the U.S. could revive its export industries.

    It seems that at least some European leaders now understand that they got played by Washington and they are pushing back. A Eurasian economic sphere is in Europe's interest. Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance with Europe? A first sign looks positive. The U.S. called off, on short notice, a plan to train Ukrainian National Guard (i.e. Nazi) forces:

    [O]n Friday, a spokesman for US forces in Europe, confirmed the delay in a statement and said: "The US government would like to see the Minsk agreement fulfilled."

    "The training mission is currently on hold but Army Europe is prepared to carry out the mission if and when our government decides to move forward," the statement said.

    Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But the surge in Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya, the war on Syria and the trouble in Ukraine have all been run by the same propaganda scheme: Obama does not want war, gets pushed and then reluctantly agrees to it. It is a false view. The buck stops at his desk and Nuland as well as General Breedlove and other official hawks concerned about their precious bodily fluids are under Obama's direct command. He can make them shut up or get them fired with a simple 30 second phone call. As he does not do so it is clear that he wants them to talk exactly as they do talk. Obama is the one driving the neocon lane.

    The Europeans should finally get this and distance themselves from that destructive path.

    Posted by b on March 7, 2015 at 01:09 PM | Permalink

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 7, 2015 2:05:22 PM | 1

    Great analysis b.
    Loved this bit...

    The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

    It's rather insulting to the EU that the dumbass, gutless, Yankees would appoint a war-mongering chicken-hawk called Breedlove to lecture them about The Importance Of Being Ernest - about hating Putin.

    jayc | Mar 7, 2015 2:47:21 PM | 2

    "the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action."

    Insisting that the "threat of military action" always be present during the practice of international diplomacy is a fundamental repudiation of international law as proscribed by the United Nations at the end of WW2. In the current Orwellian situation, the foreign policy hawks (in particularly the Anglo 5 Eyes countries) articulate policy informed by this repudiation while on the other hand insisting that they are motivated by upholding mid-century international law. Here is John Boehner speaking for a bi-partisan Congressional committee quoted today in the Washington Times:

    "It is even more than simply a component of a revisionist Russian strategy to redraw international borders and impose its will on its neighbors,it is a grotesque violation of international law, a challenge to the west and an assault on the international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II."

    ToivoS | Mar 7, 2015 2:59:09 PM | 3

    When this crisis in Ukraine first broke out last year it made no sense at all for Obama to have let Nuland carry on as she was doing. He could have defused the whole thing simply by firing Nuland or I thought. However, his actions over the past year seem to show that this was his policy as b says here.

    It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against Russia.

    So why did we do it? I will guess. Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US. Fear of losing or at least lessening US hegemony over Europe was probably a major factor in deciding to 'pivot back to Europe'. Our influence there must have seemed much more important than Asia or even the ME. Ukraine provided an opportunity to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe or so US power brokers thought. As a secondary reason, at least one that brought the US military on board with the new policy, is that a new cold war with Russia provided an opportunity to reinvigorate NATO, that has always been a favorite play thing the army and airforce. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was very difficult to justify NATO's existence.

    It would be ironies of ironies if this crisis now forces Germany to declare its independence and work harder to rebuild relations with Russia and in the process become a major player in the Eurasian Union. This is what Pepe Escobar just suggested this last week is a possibility.

    Laurence | Mar 7, 2015 3:04:18 PM | 4

    Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But ...

    You may be correct. But:

    You haven't established that the evident appearance of `reluctance' is a "false view". In theory, "The buck stops at his desk". The obvious fact that it hasn't, however, is -- at best -- by no means creditable.

    I can hardly wait 'til the `progressive' Twittercrats start calling for Obama to "go nuclear" with Putin. ...

    Colinjames | Mar 7, 2015 3:05:26 PM | 5

    #2, I guess he's taking his cues from Noodles, here's some highlights from her Match 4 address to Foreign Affairs Committee, lifted from Stephen Lendman
    • calledd murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."
    • ...called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at peace.'
    • Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs "peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."
    • "They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms."

    Claims-

    • "enhance(d) (Ukrainian) transparency in public procurement, reduce(d) government inefficiency and corruption, (laws) making the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate for business"
    • "it's "building a peaceful, democratic, independent" nation
    • ... Crimea "under illegal occupation"
    • in Eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."
    • "MH17 was shot down. Hundreds of Russian heavy weapons and troops poured across the border, fueling the conflict."
    • "Sixteen Russian uninspected 'humanitarian convoys' entered Ukraine in violation of agreements with the Ukrainian government, the ICRC and the international community."
    • "Donetsk airport was obliterated…Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the ceasefire lines, fell to separatist and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed…"
    • "This is a manufactured conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers' expense and costing the lives of young Russians…"

    Bizzaro world. Completely upside down from reality. And no I'm not trying to one up you #2! It's just crazy stuff coming out of the mouths of every politician and official and media whore, I've never seen anything like it.

    Wayoutwest | Mar 7, 2015 3:07:24 PM | 6

    Good report, b especially including the fact that this is a bipartisan project led by the Liberal Democrats.

    The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.

    james | Mar 7, 2015 3:25:46 PM | 7

    thanks b.. some good points in your post which i strongly share, this one in particular - The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States.

    when does this nightmare called us foreign policy die?

    Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 4:47:47 PM | 8

    "Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government and leader then the largely liberal Putin."

    What is wrong with those two sentences? First, "Europe", a landmass in western Eurasia usually demarcated by the crests of Ural and Caucasus mountain chains and Ural river. The text refers mostly to the governments of France and Germany. Who are "NATO hawks"? Danes and Norwegians, latter day Varangians? Or Latvians and Estonians who would like to have a re-match of Battle on Ice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice_(Lake_Peipus)

    Second, "The result …" This has to be a joke. "Europe" has many headaches with the governments of Greece and Hungary, but can they change them? Actually, in the case of Greece, this sentence could make sense, because in Greece they have a real opportunity of causing a government crisis and getting a more extreme government. But in the case of Russia, it is only a question of having a long-term gain in mutually assured economic destruction, or not.

    Double-talk is bread and butter of diplomacy, but we simple folk can afford to express ourselves more directly. The real problem in arming Ukraine is that the government there is untrustworthy and it would probably use the aid to further neglect the economy and concentrate even more on futile military endeavor, and it could also commit some atrocities as it would be at it. Being "a little bit Nazi" is perfectly fine with Baltic governments and Croatia, plus USA and Canada, could be fine with Hungary but the leader there is constantly on the prowl for good deals and just now got one from Putin, and causes mixed feeling elsewhere.

    So the trillion dollar question for most responsible European leaders is if US is more trustworthy than Poroshenko crew?

    jfl | Mar 7, 2015 5:09:32 PM | 11

    Yes, good analysis. Especially the Empire of Chaos' goal of reimplementing the aftermath of WWII : everyone outside North America flat on their backs and the US the colossus by virtue of still standing. But ...

    ' Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance with Europe? ... Obama is the one driving the neocon lane. '

    Whether it's the neocon line or in the neocon lane, Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.

    The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the actors actually implementing it by turn are identified. The Nihilist Nobel Peace Prize Laureate gets dunked everytime, hauls himself out of the tank, climbs back up on the stool, makes faces and jeers at the crowd throwing balls at the trip target ... all absurdly trying to effect a change in policy.

    It's just a job ... 2,236 days down, 686 days till payday.

    Mar 7, 2015 5:21:18 PM | 12

    @8,9,10

    Thanks for the analysis with Russia at the center rather than the USA. Catchy restatement of the difference between 'the chicken then the egg' vs 'the egg then the chicken'.

    I'm rooting for Russia, and Putin's been in charge there. Of course, I'm really rooting for my USA, but for my USA to survive the present oligarchy must be defeated : the Chicken's neck must be wrung and its carcasse flung into the stew pot.

    dan of steele | Mar 7, 2015 6:31:13 PM | 13

    it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. There was quite a lot of support for Tymoshenko from Merkel including her drive to boycott the Ukraine when Tymoshenko had been imprisoned for embezzlement.

    she was also promoting Vitaly Klitschko for the longest time abruptly ending when Vickie Nuland let it be known that he was not accceptable as a leader of Ukraine.

    The German government has been a very willing stooge of the US in causing or continuing the unrest in Ukraine. That many people in Germany have suffered due to this behavior from sanctions and embargoes on both the European side as well as the Russian side might be a consequence that the German elite decided they could live with rather than simply something forced upon them from the US.

    As far as I can tell, the fecal matter hit the air moving device right after Yanukovich decided to maintain close economic ties with Russia rather than throw in with the EU. EU for all intents and purposes Germany.

    just a thought. ymmv

    JohnH | Mar 7, 2015 7:16:23 PM | 19

    "The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States."

    And it does not appear that the US cares what happens to Europe, either. If sanctions on Iran hurt European business, meh. If sanctions on Russia push Europe back into recession...meh.

    Maybe someday Europe will get a clue...

    Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:02:30 PM | 20

    I felt like I was reading the lyin-ass New York Times. (How do these so-called journalists get ANY work done with all that CIA/StateDept/JSOC cock in their mouth? Inquiring minds want to know. Anyway…)

    Germany is presented like an old grandma, wringing her hands and saying, "Oh, mercy me! Can't we all just get along?" … If it wasn't for that dang Gen. Breedlove…except, well, he's actually right, don't you know, except, OK, he exaggerates a bit. There's LOTS of Russia aggression, and we have proof we won't show you…but not as much as he says. I mean, credibility, and all, right?…And that Vicki Nuland, well, she's bitch we all agree, but she gets things done and sometimes you need to get tough, don't ya know. She "loves Russia" (yeah, I bet…like I love a nice rare steak….sliced sooooo thin.) So…come on, dial it back a little won't you guys over in Langley…?

    This seemed to me like CIA drizzle from Der Spigot!

    A few carefully breaded pieces of True served with a piquant sauce of Lies and a side of Dissembling and Disinformation. One of those articles that is structured like, "yeah, true…BUT!"

    ToivoS @ | 3

    Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US.

    So says Mike Whitney in an important post re Nemtsov's assassination over at Counterpunch. I agree with you and him. I wonder what Uncle Ruslan thinks? He must have some ideas, having lived with Graham Fuller for all this those years.

    Colinjames @ 5

    Those excerpts really infuriated me. I have the most terrible desire to bitch slap Vicki Nudelman until she falls down and begs me to stop. I see her face and my hand itches. I need to stop watching Jess Franco movies.

    Wayoutwest @ 6

    The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.

    Ayuh. I agree, with you (see above) --and dan of steele's very excellent and needful post at 13. Germany's in this shit up to their eyeballs. I recall reading in "The Brothers" that after WW2 the CIA just basically took over (and presumably still owns) German intelligence. Took their Nazis in and kept all the spy lines and assets. Gladio was an outgrowth of that, I guess.

    But I don't think the blood-thirsty vampires in the US can dial it back. They are all up in that snatch (to slightly paraphrase a vulgar version of the Petraeus bio's title that actually got shown on US news.)

    Piotr Berman's delightful rants at 18 @ 19

    What interesting ideas and insights you bring to the discussion. If you don't mind saying, are you German? If I was a German citizen I would be very upset and I have read that, like here in the States, this Ukraine shit combined with NSA spying combined with that book about how all the media are CIA assets has caused a crisis of confidence between reasonably-informed citizens and dissembling government, media, military, etc.


    I agree with all the posters here saying that Obama has never had hold of the levers of power. A few, yes. But what with the "tunneling" of political appointees transformed into civil servants at the end of the Bush admin…yeah, no. And that's not the only reason…just one.

    jfl | Mar 7, 2015 8:11:20 PM | 21

    @13

    Certainly Germany is covetous of Russia/the Ukraine. And Merkel, like Obama, knows how to get along by going along with the ones who brung her. Used to be the Russians in East Germany, are now the Americans in West/Unified Germany.

    Both are puppets, 'loyal' to the their puppeteers. The rest of the EU apparat are in the pocket of the US, and dance to the same tune piped to Obama.

    Germany on its own is not capable of subduing Russia, yet hopes to be in position to reap the benefits of the US' destruction of same.

    They're all losers, betting on making a killing, benefiting from their neighbors' collapse. Their neighbors have other ideas ... must have to survive. TIAA.

    Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:33:21 PM | 22

    jfl @ 21

    Love your vampires and vultures scenario. Tolstoy's Vourdalak or the folkloric Russian
    Волколак or Volkolak is what I've been thinking of late, because I am a Mario Bava kind of gal.

    You know, Russia is one of the few countries NOT 110% indebted to German/London/Wall Street/Brussels banks. Seems to me that definitely has something to do with all this. They've got something to plunder. (Lotta gold. yum!) I bet there's some truth to the assertion that the flaming tire of blame for global economic collapse is being readied for Russia's neck...just in case. We're very close.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 7, 2015 9:02:57 PM | 25

    Demian @ 23

    WTF did Germany THINK was going to come of this?

    But perhaps there is no one Germany. I can only suppose that it must be like it is here in the US...different factions with their own power bases pulling their own levers.

    Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:48:57 PM | 24

    @24 I think the plan was for a rapid victory in Ukraine and Putin just stomping his feet. Keeping Crimea, the uprisings, and the general thuggery/incompetence in Kiev weren't in the plans. The Chinese didn't defend Russia against accusations about flight #mh17, the Chinese openly scoffed at the West not even giving fools like Kerry the time of day.

    German firms were supposed to win contracts replacing Russian firms not see the SCO grow and face losses from self-imposed sanctions. Merkel and people in her sphere overdid the rhetoric. Voters won't forget a major propaganda change, and Merkel and her ilk know this but can't see how to get out of the mess especially with Kiev in need of European cash.

    PBenu | Mar 7, 2015 9:19:53 PM | 26

    NotTimmeh @ 25

    So, you seem to be saying that this is rather like what WoW maintains...an offering of an exit ramp to the US...because Germany really, really wants off this highway to hell.

    Hideous to think they were all for it when it looked like easy rapings and little to no consequences.

    International finance needs to be dismantled. That's what's behind all this shit. Bankster's wars.

    Helena Cobban | Mar 7, 2015 9:31:25 PM | 27

    The practices of Ms. Nuland (taking cookies out to support the demonstrators during the "Maidan" actions) echoed exactly those of Amb. Robert Ford in Syria. In both cases it was a strange perversion and repudiation of traditional standards of diplomatic practice. It was not just a Nuland aberration.

    And we've seen the outcome, a few years later, in both these war-ravaged countries. God help the people of both countries.

    Pluto | Mar 7, 2015 9:52:56 PM | 28

    @3 ToivoS

    Interesting points you make. I believe what we have here IS the pivot to Asia, - through the backdoor. The US is haunted by the inevitable rise of Eurasia as a superpower. And, the fact is, the "pivot" was unrealistic and a rather silly strategy. China's New Silk Road Economic Belt, both rail and maritime - stretching from Beijing through Russia and across Europe to Madrid (with spurs to India, Iran, the ME and down the African continent) - was a preemptive strike that neutered US aspirations. Even worse, it's already funded.

    Picture the US on the globe: Isolated and alone, separated from the lively Eastern Hemisphere by two vast oceans. Adrift, stewing in its own juices, in desperate need of a world war to elevate it once again out of its economic doom and into super-stardom.

    This is further evidenced by the US desperation over the TPP and TTIF. It has reached a fever pitch, with endless negotiations inside the super-secret US "cone of silence." For the US, these corporate-ruled trade agreements are their last hope for hegemony over global trade, especially now that the Petrodollar is dead. (Another consequence of the Ukraine stupidity.) But, both trade treaties seem to be failing badly (there are anti-TTIF demonstrations throughout Germany today). In any event, China rendered them both irrelevant with APEC and the New Silk Road, which popped into existence the very instant that the US stepped into the Ukraine tar pit. For China, they are done deals. Even Australia and New Zealand have come to their senses and seem to be climbing on board.

    Surely, Europe already knows this. They've seen many empires decline. I suppose its only prudent to string the US along and contain the chaos....

    Demian | Mar 7, 2015 9:58:02 PM | 29

    @Helena Cobban #27:

    God help the people of both countries.

    Well, no one knows whether either one of them will continue to exist, do they? The Kremlin's intention is clearly to keep Ukraine's territory as it is (sans Crimea; that question is closed), but Ukraine is increasingly entering into full-spectrum social collapse, so wha the outcome will be is unpredictable, especially since the Ukraine was an artificial country to begin with, patched together from the territories of other countries.

    As for Syria, I am all for secular states in the Islamic world, like Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya before the US destroyed them. Our fan of the Islamic State Wayoutwest can say much more about this than I can, but it is possible that states created by Sykes-Picot will disappear, to be replaced by a caliphate. In the larger scheme of things, that would be a good thing because

    (1) even though the caliphate would initially have a regressive form of Islam, once Arabs are in control of their own destiny, they will not fear engaging in reforms;

    (2) a caliphate would create one more pole for the emerging multipolar world.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 7, 2015 10:13:03 PM | 30

    @26 They are giving Obama an out and blame can be heaped on Nuland and Breedlove. Rasmussen didn't make the Der Spiegel article, and he is completely deranged as anyone outside of GOP politics.

    IMHO Obama only responds to extreme embarrassment. Offering him an out won't work without tying Obama and Nuland at the hip.

    It's overlooked, but in 2012 when Obama came out for gay marriage, he cloaked his support in nonsense about state rights but only after his campaign machine had worked against an effort in North Carolina to defeat anti-gay/woman/child referendum. There were political reasons, but there was a growing anger. Biden saw this and just randomly announced Obama's pro gay marriage views. It took three days, but Obama got around to tepidly endorsing a form of gay marriage. Obama only acted because Biden forced his hand. It took almost two weeks after everyone in the U.S. knew Shinseki from the Veteran Affairs Department for Obama to dismiss him when Shinseki should have been fired right away, but Obama only acts when faced with total embarrassment.

    fast freddy | Mar 7, 2015 10:14:08 PM | 31

    Obama is a puppet. Cheney, Kissinger, Negroponte, GHWBush and friends, CIA, Brzezinski, Rockefeller, etc. Deep State pulls his strings. Obama was himself a CIA protege at BIC. There are no pesky principles to contend with.

    And he is not allowed to fire Nuland or any other neocon warmonger.

    Did you see what they did to JFK for stepping out of line?

    @ jfl | 11

    But exactly!

    Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.

    The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the actors actually implementing it by turn are identified.

    Pluto | Mar 7, 2015 10:45:33 PM | 34

    Although it seems there are two schools of thought about that around here, this has been my assumption from the beginning.


    @3 ToivoS

    Forgot to mention,: You spoke of consequences. That is of particular interest, I believe, and speaks to the destiny of the US as it stumbles about on the world stage, without future awareness.

    It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against Russia.

    There are more than a few significant unintended consequences that have come in short order as a result of the Ukraine blunder. For example:

    • Certainly killing the Petrodollar is a big one, which was the natural result of pushing China and Russia into the biggest oil/gas deal in world history, specifically written to bypass the dollar.
    • Compelling Gazprom to divert the destination of the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea from Bulgaria to Turkey, with the distribution hub ending in Greece. So now Turkey and Greece control the fuel coming into West and South Europe. That's quite the geopolitical accomplishment.
    • Pushing Iran into the BRICS. Russian allies are pulling together in many interesting ways these days. US sanctions have become toothless.
    • The oil pricing scheme backfiring on the US economy. I'm of the school that oil overproduction was a direct attack on Russia and the usual suspects: Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. I'm also of the opinion that the US has lost control of OPEC.

    The US is paying a mighty high price for its neocon folly.

    Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 10:55:20 PM | 35

    In response to questions, I used my real name, I am Polish citizen living in USA.

    European elite, including Germany and France, are almost instinctively aligning themselves with American elite, but they take exception to a favorite American trick: penciling a grandiose plan to be paid by EU.

    Russian counter-sanctions fall on Europeans, and it is pointless to quibble if "dollar is dead" -- it is not, but USA will not pay to integrate Turkey and Ukraine with EU, to cite some of the grandiose ideas. German conservatives in particular are notorious bean counters, they generously paid to integrate Eastern Germany, but are much less enthusiastic to have foreign beneficiaries. (In Poland, the consensus is that it is OK to help Ukrainians, provided that it will not cost anything. There is also a minority that hates Ukrainians more than Russians, and younger folks seem not to care at all.)

    As it is, EU duly enacted sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia, and Merkel is resolute at sending mixed signals, so to some extend there is no "divorce". If anything, they are on the same wavelength as Obama. Recall how Europe resisted joining Bush jr. war in Iraq. "New Europe", including Poland, provided a bunch of little contingents, and that proved to be quite unpopular domestically. Even so, regime change in Libya was accomplished mostly by Europeans, and this is perhaps one of the unique successes in history that has a dearth of claimants. On the heals of that feat, even ever supine Brits rebelled when they had a chance to repeat the success in Syria. The belief that "Americans surely know what they are doing" is eroding even as we scribble. But so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".

    I guess Putin will graciously lift sanctions on Hungarian and Greek produce, Ukraine will get some weapons and training, but not a hell lot -- seriously, what scale of military aid would truly make a difference?

    TikTok | Mar 7, 2015 11:42:48 PM | 36

    Harper has given citizenship to Yatsenyuk in case 'something goes wrong'. Fcuk. http://www.pravda.ru/news/world/formerussr/ukraine/06-03-2015/1251452-yacenyk-0/

    james | Mar 8, 2015 12:02:59 AM | 37

    @35 piotr.. thanks for pointing out euro's role in libya and how nothing is going to change, as i personally believe just like the usa is bought and paid for, so is germany and france.. to suggest there will be much of a fracture is to suggest the international banker mafia don't have these politicians on the same page. i think they do.. whether they get elected again, or the required politicians to do the job of the bankers do - i think they do..

    as for obama being anything other then a rubber stamp - i agree with @31 fast freddy.. step out of line and look what you will get.. it is hard not to be cynical..

    @36 tiktok.. what a pathetic pos we have for a leader here in canada, but like i say about most of these western leaders and to which i include harper - they are all beholden to the same narrow interests that have nothing to do with the common people's interest.. they continue to think we are stupid or worse..

    Demian | Mar 8, 2015 12:04:56 AM | 38

    @Piotr Berman #35:

    so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".

    There does not need to be any European alternative. And the EU is dominated by Germany, the intelligence services of which, as someone here observed recently, are infiltrated by the CIA (although there was a report that Germany is now setting up a branch of its intelligence service independent of USG). The alternative is Russia. It is too late for Europeans to come up with alternatives. (They did that first with Hegel and then with Marx, but neither attempt held.) Europeans just need to realize that since the world is becoming multipolar, they belong in the Eurasian pole, not a contrived Atlanticist one.

    Russia has grave flaws, an Europeans can help Russians fix those, if Europeans make a break with the predatory and anti-human Anglosphere.

    Nana2007 | Mar 8, 2015 12:16:52 AM | 40

    The push back is far too late. The gorgon Nuland and Dr Strangelove himself Zed Breszinski testifying before the mouth breathers of the foreign affairs committee this week continued to ratchet up the rhetoric:
    "I wonder how many people in this room or this very important senatorial committee really anticipated that one day Putin would land military personnel in Crimea and seize it. I think if anybody said that's what he is going to do, he or she would be labeled as a warmonger. He did it. And he got away with it. I think he's also drawing lessons from that. And I'll tell you what my horror, night-dream, is: that one day, I literally mean one day, he just seizes Riga, and Talinn. Latvia and Estonia. It would literally take him one day. There is no way they could resist. And then we will say, how horrible, how shocking, how outrageous, but of course we can't do anything about it. It's happened. We aren't going to assemble a fleet in the Baltic, and then engage in amphibious landings, and then storm ashore, like in Normandy, to take it back. We have to respond in some larger fashion perhaps, but then there will be voices that this will plunge us into a nuclear war

    I'll tell you what Brezinski's real horror night dream is dying before the US attempts a full on takeover of Russia. Whether Germany likes it or not they'll continue to be a pawn in the dark lords 8 dimensional chess game. It's a little late to be thinking twice now that the breadbasket of Europe is a basket case. The hope is that the whooping that's coming to the USSA shakes out the aristocracy that brought it about and sends them fleeing with nothing but their assholes.

    Harold | Mar 8, 2015 3:48:14 AM | 43

    Oddly, Brzezinski himself not too long ago recommended the "Finlandization" of Ukraine. The neo-cons and armaments industry have adopted a cartoonish version of his theories -- which, in any case, hark back to the Geographical Pivot theory dating to 1904! It's become a crude dogma that doesn't even rise to the level of ideology.

    Prosperous Peace | Mar 8, 2015 5:20:41 AM | 44

    Decent analysis but misses two important points:

    1) "Special British-US relationship" - US has been a British colony for at least last 100 years, ie. a muscle-man for the Rothschildes-Jewish-Zionist cabal with its HQ in the City of London, Israel plays a "mad dog" role for them, Canada, Australia, and many other in the Commonwealth have their parts to play too. Because Obama since the evening of his reelection turned against the Crow Corporation, they have been forced to increasingly rely on themselves and other subjects - notice rapidly intensifying British military presence in the Central (Poland, which is situated at the very heart of the continent) and Eastern Europe (Baltic republics), as well as in the ME - Bahrain, police force now on the Turkish-Syrian border. Also British lying propaganda has been very intense, by far the worst in the EU. The neocons, McCain, Soros et al respond to the Rothschildes, always have. The British have been leading the charge recently and you will see more and more of this soon.

    2) Obama's team has been under the threats form the global criminal cabal many times itself. Security breaches at the White House, warnings of assassination, "third force" trying to start a civil war in the US by abusing the police powers and killing the police officers, fake social movements menacing the White House with "marches" like the one of Jewish Adam Kokesh...

    Summing up - it's been the City of London pulling the strings all along and Obama have been in danger of a violent overthrow already for some time.

    somebody | Mar 8, 2015 5:40:49 AM | 45

    RE: Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 10:55:20 PM | 35

    You are right about the issue of paying for grandiose plans.

    Seems though that Europeans are really pissed off.

    Jean Claude Juncker calls for European Army with headquarters in Brussels

    Key sentence

    Juncker wies zugleich auf die organisatorischen und finanziellen Vorteile des Vorhabens hin. So würde es zu einer intensiven Zusammenarbeit bei Entwicklung und Kauf von militärischem Gerät führen und erhebliche Einsparungen bringen.

    Brief translation: Juncker highlighted the organizatorial and financial advantages. Cooperation in the development and procurement of military equipment could be shared and save considerable amounts.

    jfl | Mar 8, 2015 8:13:07 AM | 46

    German official says Saudi Arabia top 'terror exporter' in Mideast
    [Vice President of the German Parliament (Bundestag) Claudia] Roth called Riyadh "the top terror exporter in the Middle East," adding that "a large portion" of extremist militants in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq hail from Saudi Arabia.

    Germany's guidelines on weapons exports make it "crystal clear that deliveries cannot be made to such countries," she stressed.

    "Besides the weapons deals, Germany is also discussing other trade ties with Saudi Arabia," she said. "Pressure could certainly be brought to bear using these."

    The results of a recent survey conducted for German daily Bild have shown that 78 percent of Germans believe Berlin should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, while a further 60 percent favor breaking off trade relations all together with the Persian Gulf monarchy due to its human rights violations.

    Great place for the crack to open up/spread from/to Ukraine.

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 10:42:49 AM | 49

    I would note that Merkel working with Timoshenko was more likely a tactical move - one in which Germany would get some leverage vs. Russia regarding natural gas moving through Ukraine as well as benefits within Ukraine.

    This is very different than the American tactic of exaggerating ethnic tensions on order to create a failed state a la Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, ad nauseam. American doesn't necessarily intend to create a failed state - the correct view is that the goal is a puppet regime, but a failed state in someone else's backyard is almost as good...or good enough.

    I'd also note that this is different than the British Empire tactic - the British would also arm "their" rebels, but they would put skin in the game (soldiers on the ground) in order to ensure that they wound up with the correct puppet regime.

    It is still unclear to me whether the American abridgement of Byzantine/Ottoman/British Empire tactics is an evolution or a devolution.

    dh | Mar 8, 2015 11:02:42 AM | 50

    @49 I think America has always attempted to maintain the 'good guy' facade. Since 911 it's been more like 'no more Mr. Niceguy'.

    guest77 | Mar 8, 2015 11:05:10 AM | 51

    If the EU and Russia can edge the United States out of the situation, it is a win/win for everyone except the US, who will have seen $5B and an old Cold War dream go up in smoke.

    If the US can be ejected, it will be the EU and especially the Germans who have gained the most mightily by the Maidan. The partition of Ukraine - getting rid of those parts that did vote more heavily for the Party of Regions and the Communists, leaves the EU with a "Orange", oligarchical Ukraine forever. A Ukrainian horse that the EU can hitch their currently broken cart to, a huge area for Germany to dominate in the heart of Europe - (one of Germany's oldest dreams). It's not something I'd personally wish on the Ukrainian population, but Ukraine becoming a proper EU member would require the suppression of the Nazis who, if they are not, would at least be loud, violent, internal opposition allied with the trouble-making USA, or at worst would try and wage a disruptive terrorist war over Crimea and the East.

    Would this situation be acceptable to Russia? Wins there would be the retention of Crimea with no question as to its return to the rump Ukraine, plus the advantage of having the US out of the Ukraine completely and having caused an EU/US fissure. The status of the East would have to be determined, but it would seem that independence or becoming part of Russia would be the best bets there now that they'd no longer be able to offset the vote of the far west.

    Anyway, that's all details. The real good thing here - for people all over the globe - would be that the war-making US elite would have been ejected from another region where they've been making trouble.

    chalo | Mar 8, 2015 11:26:00 AM | 52

    Ah, the utopian dreams of the unwashable internet junky. Germany will never reject the US. You heard it hear first. LOL

    Scott | Mar 8, 2015 11:42:29 AM | 53

    So far when it comes to any "divide" all I've seen is rhetoric and posturing. Considering the Fourth Reich and it's vassals are owned and controlled by the same puppet-masters I don't see any actual schism happening. Small European countries that actively resist will find a "color" revolution brewing. Large nations who actually push back will be hit with economic warfare. The courage to stand up for their people and stop the lunatics in D.C. doesn't exist in the currant political actors in Europe. I truly hope I'm wrong, but until we see DEEDS instead of mere WORDS...the steady slide toward war will continue.

    rufus magister | Mar 8, 2015 11:43:22 AM | 54

    ...To get back on topic, Russia Insider considers the broader question of the regime's attitudes; the open fascism of the junta is I think at root of much of European unease. Kiev's Drive to Dehumanize East Ukrainians is certainly a key component of that mentality.

    purple | Mar 8, 2015 11:59:18 AM | 55

    All the European leaders are compromised in some way, the NSA probably has everything they have written, said, or done in a database. Merkel looks to have been involved in some shady activities in East Germany if you look closely enough. Don't expect Europe to break from Pax Americana.

    Wayoutwest | Mar 8, 2015 12:24:05 PM | 56

    RM@54

    I think that the unease in Europe about the rise of open fascism is superficial and more a PR concern than true opposition at least among the Ruling Class. So long as fascism serve their purposes and feeds their true agendas but remains obscured it is supported and protected.

    OT again, many of us Oldies experienced music somewhat differently than today where albums or sides of albums were how we enjoyed the performances. Even radio DJs were judged by the way they programmed their shows and we were always in search of the perfect segway.

    Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 12:40:07 PM | 57

    Divorce? Hardly. EU want an EU army, http://rt.com/news/238797-eu-joint-army-threat/

    Another US puppet idea.

    rufus magister | Mar 8, 2015 12:53:42 PM | 58

    ...On topic -- the fascism by itself is not too great a worry. That they're incompetent and it will cost someone lots of money to fix things more so. Events may not break up "the Allies" now, but with the proper moves and missteps by the varied parties involved.... Someone's planning a few moves ahead, and I don't think it's DC. Sadly, we can't overlook the power of short-sighted deviousness.

    diogenes | Mar 8, 2015 1:20:48 PM | 60

    It looks to me as if the differences between Obama and Merkel on Ukraine are tactical not strategic, viz:

    Merkel doesn't have to deal with the infamous American "bottom line" every 90 days, and this gives her leisure to actually think about what she is doing.

    German voters have a mind of their own and are not compliant stooges like American voters, who only require a few weeks of cheap propaganda to go along with the most crackpot of schemes. The saying "the burned child fears the fire" does not apply in their case.

    The goal from Merkels point of view must be the neoliberal exploitation of Russia - not bringing Ukraine into NATO, which is only useful in an aggressive war against Russia; or for use as a provocation resulting in the removal of Putin.

    Therefore Merkel has no qualms about putting the Western project against Russia on hold until a more opportune time.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 1:25:48 PM | 61

    Hm, excellent article b, as always, though my first thoughts were, 'overly optimistic' ...

    However, upon some reflection and reconsideration, there does seem to be a confluence/pattern of events occurring recently, which may signal that a real 'Newer Great Game' may be afoot, in our currently Unipolar, sole superpower, Empire dominated world.

    The Minsk agreement was done without US involvement, in fact explicitly excluded US involvement, and the subsequent events of the EU players give every indication of having continued in that vein ... ie. Germany and France clearly acting independent of the Empire ... Poroschenko exposed as a powerless puppet, purely a pawn, a mere agent of influence of the US.

    Now there are firm calls for no new sanctions by the EU, 'give Minsk a chance' ...

    The reports re Breedlove/NATO and German governments new 'perspective' re Ukraine/Russia in this thread ... effectively denouncing the Empires warmongering, baseless propaganda, and willingness to have the EU 'go fuck itself' re Russia/Ukraine for no-ones benefit except the US. History, and US geopolitical strategy repeats ...

    Now the EU (President Junckers) calling for the creation of an EU Integrated Army ... with only the UK and France so far having expressed concerns. France has always had a firm view to an independent military, regardless of NATO. UK view is irrelevant as they are merely viewed as the US suborned 'spoiler' in the EU, so again no surprise and no leverage/clout. Reports are Germany support the EU/Junckers proposal ... claims an integrated EU army would be far more effective and significantly less costly, as well as utilizing EU resources for the EU's benefit, not that of the US. Which would be quite true if micro and macro duplication at all levels was reduced by allocating specific functions and roles to relevant EU nations militaries within such a 'truly integrated' force ... for example, German Armored Corps, French Naval/Marine forces, Spanish Airborne/Airmobile, Italian Air Defence, a smaller member state to speciliaze as MPs, etc. The very proposal implicitly and explicitly would result in the dissolution of NATO, which has only ever been a US political-military agency within Europe serving exclusively the US interest. Such a proposal is NOT for the Empires benefit and very far from a trivial event. The Empire appears to have completely missed this coming ...

    Reports the German government has created a new 'independent' offshoot of the BND, ie. a true German Intelligence service (or the seeds of ?) actually serving German National interests, as opposed to the US created and ever since suborned BND since the end of WWII ... is this also happening 'under the radar' in other EU states ?

    Escalation of explicit diplomatic rhetoric calling out the prime US ally and Empire linchpin in the ME, Saudi Arabia, as the major source of terrorism, in the War on Terra ...

    The extensive Snowden revelations, and fallout (latest blatant example - GEMALTO sims), re AUSCANUKUSNZ (Five-Eyes), could probably have led to the actual realization that there is the US and its four privileged 'Vassals', Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand, first and foremost actually comprising the 'West' as far as the Empire is concerned, and only then so called 'third tier' pseudo allies, such as Germany, France, etc (which are treated as actual 'potential hostiles' by the five eyes), and then lastly all the rest of the 'Barbarians' in the world ... all the Empires sweet words and false comforts/assurances over the years may have finally come home to roost.

    China and Russia, are clearly progressively entering ever closer into an integrated Political/economic/defence anti Empire bloc at multiple levels ... significant overtures between Egypt and Russia, Russia and Iran ... the BRICS economic and South American economic 'exit' from the domination of the Empires Petrodollar and previous economic/political exploitation/dominance.

    Perhaps the Empire and the five eyes have been so busy attempting to 'collect it all' and endlessly pivot from here to there and back again, whilst playing divide and rule from one nation state to the other, filled to the brim with their own exceptionalism, that they have missed the bigger picture, missed seeing the new 'forest' emerging, having paid far to close attention to their brushfires and all those individual trees ...

    OTOH, however, there would appear to be enough concurrent events occurring quickly enough to envisage the ground moving from under the feet of the Empire and the five eyes ... and in plain view ...

    Peace. Salaam. Shalom.

    Noirette | Mar 8, 2015 2:13:07 PM | 63

    .. it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. -- dan of steele at 13.

    You bet. Merkel is an unexamined mover in these stories. (Germany has paid penance and is so cool…not.) Recall the break-up of Yugoslavia, under the radar Germany was the no 1 champion and mover, with the US.

    Merkel has been meddling in Ukraine since forever, due to for a large part to up EU expansionism (Germany is the only country that benefits from the Eurozone, not in an evil or illegit way, all the other countries agreed..), to stretch out again, for more territory, cheap labor, factories run at low labor costs, the well-off in 'satellite' countries and elsewhere buying German products, finance ad loans, and so on. See Poland.

    German expansionism! (Not that France is any better but they have less clout so are wimpy followers.) The Eurozone works like that: lend, give, money to poor 'southern' countries so that they buy your goods, when they stop buying or believing, you cut them off, and look for new markets. Or downscale etc.

    Re. Ukraine, the fantasy was it could join the EU (not considered realistic by any reasoned analysts or actors unless talking about 20 years down the road without war) and Merkel pushed that.

    Cuddled up to the US who had other aims, to make it short, provoke Russia, the whole thing was to be wrapped up with a lot of love-handshakes, as the Coup-Kiev Gvmt. was expected to maintain it's hold on a 'unitary' country which would be, it goes without stating, open to new 'industrialism', 'farming', 'reforms' (open up for foreign capital to make huge profits), and/or from the Nuland-type side, attack Russia by cutting ties, banning trade with Russia (see sanctions), forbidding Russian influence, media, commerce, and pushing for war, etc.

    Donbass ppl objected, rose up, and it turned out that the Ukr. Gvmt could not deliver, - no army that could perform, no will, incompetence, also thieves...

    These completely contradictory aims, of the EU and the US, are now public.

    - one pov there are many others

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 2:40:02 PM | 64

    @ Okie Farmer

    Many 'perhaps's and certainly not clear yet what the EU Army proposal truly indicates yet, but Germany is clearly behind and for it ... Ultimately the EU is Germany-France and there are many new possibilities emerging.

    The geopolitical consequences of the reality of the Snowden revelations re the five-eyes conduct/actions/objectives and falsity of supposed alliances for 'mutual' as opposed to exclusive benefit of the Empire at every level may well have triggered recalculations amongst the 'pseudo allies' governments, this may well be the case with Germany, at least.

    Usually very pessimistic, in this instance 'overly optimistic', or momentarily envisioning an alternate possible ?

    Is it really in the EU interests to take a hit for the Empires benefit re Cold War 2.0 or the possibility of WW3 or move towards a less Atlanticist future ?

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 3:21:11 PM | 65

    @dh #50
    With the single exception of the Romans - because they literally ruled everything - every other empire always tries very hard to present the best front.

    The British had their "White Man's Burden", the US had the "American Dream" but which has since been switched with the "War on Terror".

    No doubt because only the least informed believe that old lie anymore.

    Ed Lozano | Mar 8, 2015 3:25:29 PM | 66

    Anonymous #57

    An European Army would be the final act of the divorce from US, since it would be a de facto ending of NATO. No wonder why both US and their major "European" puppet UK radically oppose the idea. NATO's purpose was not only to counter Soviet military, but also to make sure Germany would never "rise again". That purpose is still biding and Germans know it. But under NATO umbrella, there's not much they can do to restore even a glimpse of the military power they had in the past. They "voluntarily" abdicate from developing nuclear weapons and most of their military spending is restricted to defensive air/ground capabilities, instead of means of projecting power such as naval vessels and long-range missiles. However, in an European unified defense system most of these restrictions should be lifted so to allow Germany to fulfill its obligations to the European allies. Most of American military bases would be rendered futile, and it's almost certain that NATO's nuclear silos stationed in Europe would have to be redeployed elsewhere, since an European defense agreement would demand full control of all military assets in European territory. Finally, Eastern Europe would turn to Germany and France instead of US when dealing with Russia, thus bringing more political stability to the region (violent "Maidans" would be less likely in the presence of foreign troops who, unlike Americans, have to answer for their actions when they come back home).

    Needless to say, all these events would be catastrophic for US global domination strategy, since they would lose not only military control over strategic assets in Western Europe, but also major influence in the only part of the European Union they are actually welcome today. But one should remember none of this is new: since its creation European Union was conceived to have its own unified defense system, but this part of the European pact was sabotaged by British and Americans from the beginning. Even French nationalist leader De Gaulle became fond of the idea, but his efforts would be futile while Germany was not reunified and European Union was still a project. And one should notice an unified Europe is still a project today. Eurozone is crumbling, resentment among the periphery is running high and both Germans and French know it. One of the necessary solutions for preserving European Union is a unified defense system, for it would lift the minor associates defense spending burden while allowing the major ones to exert much more effective political influence among them, so to prevent that every economic crisis in those countries become a threat to the stability of the entire bloc itself.

    Noirette #63

    Undoubtedly Germany played a role in Maidan and there's enough evidence of that, but I don't think their objective was to produce a violent divorce between Ukraine and Russia. As far as I know German ambassadors were the major force in bringing to the negotiating table both President Yanukovitch and the opposition groups, who then signed the 21st of February agreement for Constitutional reform and anticipated elections. This agreement was also supported by Russia, and since Germany is the natural interlocutor for Moscow in "European" affairs, I assume the whole thing was arranged by Berlin. Problem is, no one really expected what happened the day after - except of course the Americans who had already decided to sabotage the deal and take it all for themselves, bypassing both Europe and Ukrainian "moderates" (like Yulia Timoshenko) through bribing the major oligarchs and former members of Yanukovitch's cabinet and the use of Right Sector thugs to attack Government buildings and seize power at once.

    Germany won absolutely nothing with this outcome. Sure, Ukraine turned to West, but at what price? Now it's a devastated and bankrupted country with no control over a large portion of its own territory. And guess who will have to pay for their reconstruction? Yes, Germany. Merkel is anything but stupid. She knew from the beginning how Russia would react if threatened in her most sensitive interests. Georgia is not a far off memory for them. So yes, Germans would sure act to topple Yanukovicth if they had the chance, but only in a way "negotiated" with Russia. And that's exactly what they thought they had achieved in February 21st, 2014. Yanukovicth would be turned into a powerless President; there was to be new elections and Merkel's favorite Timoshenko would certainly win; Ukraine would join EU soon; and Russia would have to be satisfied with her Crimea's bases, and nothing more than that. The German plan was going too well, until Vic Nuland decided to f.. the EU once again. And here we are now.

    Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 3:26:40 PM | 67

    Outraged

    Did you miss that the EU mentioned Russia as the reason why EU wanted a EU army? Again, nothing but a US puppet proposal.

    @63,64

    jfl | Mar 8, 2015 4:20:37 PM | 68

    It seems obvious to me that the EU - Germany - is much better off with Russia, the junior partner, than it is with the USA, the dominant partner.

    Ok... but that's the way Germany sees itself vis a vis Russia and the way the US sees itself vis a vis Germany.

    I guess the only question is on the downside of the switch ... how much pain can the US inflict on Germany thereafter?

    And that's relative to how much pain the US' vicious, one-sided schemes can elicit for Germany (the EU) from the Russians. And that seems, everyday in every way, to be increasing.

    I imagine that if the US does get a real war going with Russia they will have tipped the balance ... everything will then get unfrozen and move really quickly.

    The reality will be apparent before news of it reaches our ears. Supersonically.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 4:25:08 PM | 69

    @ Anonymous

    If the intent is to replace NATO would you declare it or justify it 'falsely' by using the Empires propaganda justifications as a false cover ?

    Again with the US puppet proposal crap, and why would the US want to create such a force when it would undermine nay invalidate NATOs very reason for existence for the last 60 plus years. NATO has been a political-military Trojan within Europe effectively controlled and literally commanded by the US, serving US interests for all that time.

    Respectively, and reluctantly your 'point' suggests you are either naive, a fool or trollish, perhaps. Ed Lozano #66 touches on some relevant history and context if you are not aware of it ...

    Ultimately nations only have and act on thier 'interests'.

    okie farmer | Mar 8, 2015 4:53:54 PM | 70

    Too much optimism in this thread. Heads of NATO, both European and US, have been urging NATO countries to "spend more on defense" - also many US politicians. There is a faction in Germany that have 'dreams' of their own MIC. Ukraine offers the chance to fulfill those dreams, they're pushing hard while they see the chance.

    All but two of NATO members are headed by neoliberal scumbags, Greece and Hungary are the exceptions. France and Germany lead the way. Merkel has always been a neoliberal, Hollande has come to it only slightly reluctantly.

    Neoliberalism is what US and EU have most in common - politically/economically. Very important. I don't think Germany has given up on buying up and privatizing as much of Ukraine as they can; and certainly the US based multinational corps are already buying Ukraine's assets - probably those corps in Europe too.

    Perhaps the Spiegel article is a kind of false flag - or not; nonetheless it airs out what I see as a false resistance meme. Merkel, like Thatcher before her, is a committed neoliberal. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE!

    Ed Lozano | Mar 8, 2015 5:15:02 PM | 73

    @Anonymous #71

    The fact that the main "cause" for EU Army is the need containing Russia changes nothing on the discussion about EU-US "divorce". Containing Russia has always been the issue of any Western alliance. Problem is, US and EU have major divergences about how to do it. US favors a far more provocative and offensive approach, by positioning military bases, missile shields and naval fleets around Russian border, and encouraging Russia's neighbors to cut their ties with Moscow and join Western partnerships. Europe on the other hand advocate a strictly defensive pact, that respects Russia's interests and influence over its near abroad.

    The main reason for this divergence is quite easy to understand. European leaders know that in the event of war with Russia, the battlefield will be in their own lands. US on the other hand has nothing to risk and much to gain with a conflict between Russia and Europe, unless of course Russia decides to end the World (but for some odd reason that possibility never comes into account for neocons). But again, the divorce between US and EU is quite clear in this case. And I believe it's needless to say Russia would strongly support an European Army proposal, even if it's main purpose was to counter Russian military. For threats should be perceived not by one's alleged purposes, but by the means one employs to achieve those purposes.

    lysias | Mar 8, 2015 5:16:45 PM | 74

    Yes, the powers that be did that to JFK when he stepped out of line. But they must know that, if they did the same thing to Obama, there would be riots all over the country. So Obama has power that JFK never had, but he's too cowardly or opportunistic to use that power.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 5:23:09 PM | 75

    @ jfl

    Agreed, though the US has always been cowardly, has always avoided risking open conflict with first world countries. It far prefers to have others fight it out between or amongst themselves and benefit from picking up the spoils at little cost afterwards. Everyone else is weaker thier economies damaged and the US relevant power enhanced.

    See the Iran-Iraq war, see the US conduct in WWI, profiting handsomely throughout and only entering the conflict at the last moment once Germany was already on her knees and France and UK were crippled. Rinse and repeat in WwII letting the Nazis and Japanese Empire do their worst and handsomely profiting from all sides until they were dragged in on Dec 07 41. The cost exacted from 'helping' the UK was a takeover of their former empire and relegation to junior poodle vassal status. The UK was required to pay every single last dollar owed including interest accrued for Lend Lease during WWII and they only cleared the debt a few years ago.

    The US doesn't want actual war with Russia, however, ongoing conflict both economic and low-medium military in Europe weakens all the europeans at no cost to and for the further benefit of the Five-eyes.

    Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) works, unless miscalculations happen ...

    It would seem the economic cost to Germany and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU regarding Russia is more than acceptable to the US, which ultimately has little skin in the game, for the US its a win-win, though apparently Germany and the EU? may be developing an entire different perspective, again all comes back to national 'interests'. And there appears to be no upside for Europe's interests re 'fuck the EU' ... even the somewhat rabid Poles are questioning the economic cost of Russia baiting re sanctions which are only hurting Russia and EU, US cost/pain=nil.

    Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 5:28:06 PM | 76

    okie farmer

    You are right, too much naive folks here suddenly. When people say that the EU army will somehow be "defensive" and will go against America's policies its just get too much to even comment further.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 7:21:58 PM | 78

    @ Okie Farmer

    The Military Commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe - *barf*) is always a US General Officer and says publicly exactly what he is instructed to say by DC (ie. Breedlove), his counterpart the NATO Secretary-General supposedly speaks for all NATO members however due to the US largely rigging the appointments has most often been little more than a rabid Atlanticist warmonger also receiving his talking points from DC, former Anders Fogh Rasmussen having been one of the worst, and the current Jens Stoltenberg is no better (he's a champion for NATO getting its very own Nukes, yay), hence there isn't much room for other individual members of NATO to even get airtime re issues relative NATO.

    Yes, the US Commander of NATO and the effectively US appointed Secretary-General sockpuppet and lots of US politicians want the Europeans to spend a lot more of their Euros on an expanded NATO military that the US commands, especially if its US armaments, and even more so if that caused the Russians to have to waste more money to further counter/offset a NATO expansion, for the benefit of US interests. Cost/pain to US=nil.

    However, there has been little discernable success because of sustained resistance to this call for some time now by NATO member countries, regardless of the over-the-top US propaganda re Russia and Ukraine, as NATO members have better things to do with those Euros given the state of the EU economy (austerity - public antipathy to military expenditure) since the GFC and the only beneficiary would be the US including indirectly by further weakening the EU economy to further US economic advantage globally. The indications are that even the UK poodle intends to further cutback, not expand, its military budget after the upcoming election.

    The selling points of this possible EU Army apparently being put forward by Junckers/Germany are an EU Commander (ie. Not a US officer, rotating national appointment ?), under EU command serving EU interests, supposedly greater effectiveness/efficiency/reduced duplication, and therefore purportedly costing less Euros overall re current military expenditure (compared to US controlled NATO ?).

    Nah, can't for the life of me see why the UK and US would be adamantly opposed ... *cough*

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 10:07:10 PM | 80

    I would separate German policies in the rest of the EU/world with German policies within their own borders.
    A strong proxy for the presence of neoliberal economic policies is property prices. Nations which undergo a property bubble - are almost always neoliberal. Germany in this respect had pretty much the lowest property price growth of any EU nation.

    Debs is dead | Mar 8, 2015 10:08:00 PM | 81

    If American foreign policy can engineer a war based around the Ukraine where European troops fight russian troops at the same time as a major schism develops in Europe between the 'new Europeans' of the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech republic and the old Europeans of France germany italy and spain, the amerikan empire will have killed two birds with one stone.

    I reckon the European schism won't be splintering along such neat and tidy fault lines if it splinters at all, however.

    While the old school euro politicians may be reluctant to go to war, I am unsure their military leadership shares that view.

    For too long Nato command structures have been trained with an American ethos and a value set likely to see war as being 'a good thing'. The alacrity with which Nato tossed its European defense goal aside to jump into Afghanistan and then encouraged Nato members to deploy to then, despite both deployments being at odds with the wishes of their fellow citizens, ably illustrates the fault line between political and military leadership which successive euro pols have desperately tried to conceal from their voters

    In the immediate post war period the euro governments had little say in the matter but with the occasional exception of france the bulk of european pols have been content to let amerika pick up the training tab for staff officers. With the short term goal orientation typical of elected leaders, most euro pols chose to believe they were getting 'free' training for their military commanders, rather than the truth - that europe was paying vast sums for a military whose commanders would dance the washington jig.

    The short-sightedness of europe's pols has them choking their Greek brothers and sisters while the euro continues to decline yet the US$ arcs ever upwards, and never asking themselves "why are we working so hard to help amerika at the expense of fellow europeans?"

    I have no doubt however much Merkel and co claim to oppose a full on war with Ukraine; instigated at least in part by their own military leaders whose patriotism must be open to question, that in the end they will acquiese to Nuland's strategy.

    Not to do so would rquire vision and personal courage both of these in short supply among euro neo-liberals.

    Especially for Merkel there is an easy out. All she needs to do is to tap into the just below the surface and rarely enunciated beliefs of a substantial number of her fellow citizens - that Germany has the 'right' to expand its influence further east.

    whack | Mar 9, 2015 5:15:16 AM | 85

    @Outraged 78

    What a relief to see finally somebody who gets it. Bravo!

    (Some hasbara trolls here pretend not to, in order to spread fear and disnfo).

    Prosperous Peace | Mar 9, 2015 2:25:19 AM | 84

    I think you give Obongo way too much credit.

    He is "President" yes, but is he really? Or is he just a token face for the McCain´s and the other white House plantation owners to hold up for the 99%, a mere House n*gger?

    Everytime the man open his mouth accompanied as always by his Telepromter or advisors, even then puerile stupidities ansd ridicolous threats comes out. I think he is doing a better characterization of himself than the North Koreans possibly could imagine...

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/north-korea-trolls-obama-compares-us-president-monkey-tropical-jungle

    Anonymous | Mar 9, 2015 6:17:16 AM | 87

    @ Debs is Dead

    The whole purpose of NATO from inception was to undermine and suborn the military command of the NATO members military forces to US control for the benefit of the Empire. To have leverage of those militaries and direct command influence outside of their 'sovereign' governments. To keep Germany 'down'. Many Non-US-UK NATO officers are very aware indeed of what NATO really is, US provided 'training' or not. De Gaulle was well aware of the threat and gave NATO 'the finger' many times.

    Five-eyes military officers are routinely utilized by their intelligence agencies to actively and aggressively cultivate and suborn any military officer who is not Five-eyes. The same process is aggressively pursued by the intelligence agencies against their counterparts amongst their tier three and four pseudo-allies such as Germany, France, Italy, etc. This has been going on for many decades.

    The Chinese learnt this lesson during WWII and under no circumstances allow any officer with Operational/Line command in the PLA to have direct contact with US military counterparts except under very strict circumstances. The PLA has a dedicated corps of officers to conduct such interaction and liasion who will never be given PLA Operational/Line commands in their career as a result. To say the least, this really pisses the US off no end. A PR/Liaison officer in the PLA is of no use as an agent or future agent of influence given such policies, bummer.

    These 'harmless' military-military and intelligence-intelligence interactions have been the very basis/foundation stone of the vast majority of the coups and destabilization operations the US has conducted on every continent since WWII.

    There is the Five-eyes and then every other country on the planet, who are merely given different ratings of 'hostile' or 'enemy' and treated accordingly, regardless of any public utterings re so called 'alliances' and 'partnerships'.

    'Old Europe' has dragged its feet and more many times despite dictats from the US. Latin America provides many examples of where the US polices/actions are ultimately counter-productive, compare its current state to the 60's-70's-80's absolute US dominance.

    Regardless of US Neoliberal politics/virus the serving militaries of NATO as a whole would be bound more tightly to their own communities and individual national interests, should push come to shove, me thinks, given histories lessons.

    IF the EU is to get out from under US domination/control/influence which is more and more counter to its own and europes interests (and many of its individual nations interests), it has to create separation of its intelligence services from the Five-eyes and take back control of its own military commands and agencies. A very big IF indeed ...

    Outraged | Mar 9, 2015 5:38:28 AM | 86

    More proof for the naive folks here:
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/09/400990/Russia-MP-calls-EU-army-idea-provocative

    [Mar 09, 2015] Nuland's Neocon Lies and McCain's Agony - McAdams and Taylor Week in Review

    March 7, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Victoria Nuland distorts the US role in the Ukraine coup before Congress. Isn't it supposed to be frowned upon to lie to Congress? Also Iran joins the fight against ISIS and John McCain is troubled by the development. He would rather have Americans on the ground fighting.

    [Mar 09, 2015] Neocon Nuland Lies About Ukraine Before Congress

    March 5, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland appeared before the House International Relations Committee yesterday to beat the war drums against Russia over Ukraine. Her testimony was full of lies, RPI Director Daniel McAdams told RT, starting with her claim that the US-backed violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government last year was the work of "peaceful protesters."

    Russia was behind it all, claimed Nuland to the US House, conveniently leaving out her personal role in the overthrow of the elected government and power-brokering for the coup government -- as recorded in her own phone call with the US Ambassador in Kiev at the time.

    [Mar 09, 2015] Boris Nemtsov ally: Islamist speculation over murder 'useful for Kremlin' by Shawn Walker

    They still want to play the war propaganda game. Here we go. Shawn Walker writings. Foreign Office talking points. What not this Illya Yashin (not sure if he was co-leader of Nemtsov's opposition party then), involved with distribution to protesters several millions in West-supplied cash that were discovered at Ksenia Sobchak apartment during Russian color revolution of 2012 ?
    Mar 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    founderchurch

    The NEW Cold War is back with a vengeance. Similar lineup but very different ideologies in conflict. Before you had atheistic communism against religious capitalism, now the roles are reversed. America and England are now resembling the old socialist USSR and Red China, while Russia and China are now increasingly coming to resemble the formerly religious and capitalistic America and England. What irony... OMG one thing is the same, eminent Nuclear War...

    richiep40 -> Jose C. Sandoval

    We will never know who started the fire in Odessa, The Guardian.

    What happened to the open and transparent investigations into the shootings in Maidan, the fire in Odessa and the downing of the Malaysian aircraft I wonder ?

    VladimirM

    "Putin has said he has taken "personal control" of the investigation"

    The phrase has sparked a sort of controversy here, some people are even using it as a proof of conspiracy. It's mainly because they are not aware of what this expression actually means.
    The phrase "взять под личный контроль" in Russian does not mean that Putin is personally in charge of the team of investigators giving orders which line to follow or not, who to charge or arrest or not.

    It simply means that police and security service are informing him regularly about the progress in the investigation, meetings or briefings may be held, reports are being made, etc., etc. The importance of the case is unprecedented, so the people, resources, etc. must be involved, engaged in the same unprecedented scale. The highest level of control is just facilitating all this as well as cooperation and coordination of law-enforcement agencies.
    That's what this eye-catching phrase means.

    Laudig, 2015-03-10,00:16:54

    This is what a political assassination looks like American-style. "After two years of guerrilla warfare, leading Péralte to declare a provisional government in the north of Haiti, Charlemagne Péralte was betrayed by one of his officers, Jean-Baptiste Conzé, who led disguised US Marines Sergeant Herman H. Hanneken (later meritoriously promoted to Second Lieutenant for his exploits) and Corporal William Button into the rebels camp, near Grand-Rivière Du Nord.[1]:215-217" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_P%C3%A9ralte

    Solongmariane 9 Mar 2015 14:41

    Contrary to JFK & Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Isaac Rabin .!!!! .we get a lot of arrested suspects. It's a conjuration, and with so much complices it will possible to get informations. Objectivily, I don't see why Putin will need to eliminate physically Nemtsov, because he didn't exist before his assassination.

    It was so easy to destroy him politically, with the kind of life he has ( too much women). It's the west who created a anti-Putin heros, for his propaganda..

    Andrew -> Oldtruster

    I think Ramzan Kadyrov said the truth. He illustrated the motivation of the killer. The killer seems a simple-minded person. It was easy to convince him that Nemtsov had outraged the prophet. This have nothing to do with real motives of the murder but we will never get to know them as a man who convinced the killer has died. Investigators are off the trail, case closed.

    susandbs12 9 Mar 2015 14:38

    Rather than speculation we should wait for the results of the investigation to be published.

    The Russia haters are too quick to expect instantaneous results, and jump to preposterous conclusions based on nothing.

    Wait for the investigation to be completed. This constant sniping will not have a positive effect on those who are doubtlessly working very hard to find out what happened and why.

    seaspan -> Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 15:13

    Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev.

    Or Muslims...

    The list was rather short for Sherlock, and you cant convict them all. Muslims are the perfect patsie and the crazy fundies can and are indirectly connected to any number of third "western" parties already. So all in all, a good choice. I can just see the conspiracy loons at RT and elsewhere busy connecting the dots, to defend their main man Putin.

    Ciarán Here 9 Mar 2015 14:38

    Boris Nemtsov ALLY and the guardian make fine cocktail Islamist speculation over murder 'useful for Kremlin' ....but not useful for the USA UK EU....

    Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves

    Ciarán Here -> tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:34

    Yes you spotted it, it is called pointing the finger away from oneself - look over there! No not there in Detroit or Greece for example but there in Russia we need to demonize a enemy to distract the plebs from our mistreatment of them...and to justify our wars against those who simply say no and that we are a sovereign state not a vassal of your greed ...


    aucontraire2 MasonInNY 9 Mar 2015 14:19

    You are not naive if you are from NY. You know that the Putin saga is all a made up story to hide the failures of the west on the international scene.

    The US is a failed leader now because it has failed the world in not providing justice to Palestinians. The world needs a moral leader. Obviously the Chinese aren't interested at becoming the world's moral leader, Russia can't become a moral leader for obvious reasons, Canada was on its way to take the leadership, but the US republicans saw to it by forcing a nutcase called Harper who hides in a closet at the first sound of firecrackers.

    tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:18

    The Guardian Trusts's new way of keeping privileged access to governmental news is to promote propaganda pieces for the government. The Guardian had to do a 180 after Snowden, so we'll forever more get the likes of subjective opinions of young idealists from a Russian political party that couldn't afford a security detail for its leader.

    I guess with the ceasefire in Ukraine and the arrests of two conspirators so far from Chechnya, they are running out of angles to spread the BS around with.

    How about switching over to the not-so breaking news that globalization is devastating currencies and economies, politics and human rights and resources and environmernts; the monetising and marketing on everything worldwide.

    Why report on the failure of politics and economics in one lousy country, when there's a "failure du jour" everyday caused by globalization.

    Why not cover the wars resulting from it on a daily rotation?

    Who could have predicted that World War 3 would be a protracted economic war that would plunge the world into a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years?

    The real wars are now suicides where people, who can't stand the stifling boredom of repititous consumer product variations, sign up to commit suicide en mass in a foreign country. That, adversely, is video gaming creating its own reality...

    Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 14:12

    A predictable approach, but it misses something rather important. If the murder is indeed brought home to the Chechens, then that is very convenient for all the other and much more likely suspects - Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev. Putin had no motive, but each of those three had much to gain from a Nemtsov assassination, and have been gleefully cashing in ever since.

    If Putin wanted to deflect blame onto someone else, why on earth wouldn't he choose one of those? If Russia is the gangland state so many seem to think, then it would be simple to 'do a Kiev' and stage a 'confession' implicating the CIA, Poroshenko, or anyone it wanted. So why hasn't it?

    Unless of course the investigation is genuine and the Chechens did it after all...

    irishmand -> seaspan 9 Mar 2015 15:06

    It is my understanding that his area of influence and political activity was limited to Moscow, the place Stalin over defended as he correctly surmised it was the brain of the USSR. Yeltsin also understood Moscow as the place to agitate to shake up the national leadership.

    If you want to start a coup, you have to do it in Moscow. Nemtsov was losing his influence in Moscow. He was an member of the local duma in Yaroslavl'.

    therealbillythefish 9 Mar 2015 15:05

    Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly quickly and at least one has already confessed.

    So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.

    irishmand McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:03

    I have no shame. Sorry, I lost it somewhere on my way... Maybe, after reading the western press for a while, I started mimicking them.

    But, in my defense, I only troll the trolls. If somebody wants to have a meaningful discussion I am ready to have it too..

    artdeco McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:02

    Yeah, suspected so (Not that there's anything wrong with being Russian!, to paraphrase Seinfeld) - the frequent absence of the little word the in sentences is a quite reliable "tell"...
    ;)

    seaspan -> 1waldo1 9 Mar 2015 15:00

    Why would he have to be in the "western press" to be considered important by the Kremlin? He was involved in Moscow and was assassinated for his political activity there, not in Chechnya or London. Doesn't Russia have its own independent domestic political dynamic?

    No one else outside that venue should have given a damn about him.

    rodney9 -> UBX525AEZ 9 Mar 2015 14:58

    They even had a snow removal truck come by there to obstruct any potential witnesses at that exact moment of the murder.The snow truck seemed to be slowed down at the point of the murder to provide the killer or killers cover

    You clearly belong to the Gary Kasparov school of en passant criminologists.

    McStep -> crystaltips2 9 Mar 2015 14:55

    mate, there are so many apparatchik trolls on this and other related threads, it's a joke. the laughable thing about them is that most Russians know their media system is woefully centrally controlled and censored, but they actually agree with this because they think the function of news media is to tell the people want they want to hear in order to maintain solidarity in times of trouble.

    in essence, they know, or a part of them knows, that they're talking utter **** but i guess like some poor domestically abused partner it's a case, of, " SHUT UP, WHAT DO YOU KNOW??? HE LOVES ME!!!!!"

    but it's understandable. if your leader is perpetuating generations of the indoctrinated notion that the tsar has every right to pillage the state, murder its people and incite conflict on a whim, then its probably is very difficult to come to terms with the abject sense of shame they should be feeling.

    therealbillythefish

    Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly quickly and at least one has already confessed.

    So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.

    Fromrussia1976 -> therealbillythefish

    Or you'd better to investigate who has downed that plane in the Ukraine... Half a year has left, but no result!

    vr13vr

    We don't know yet all the details and we are not sure what is behind this Chechen link. But no matter what the working hypothesis are and what the results are, this opposition is going to criticize it. That's why he is in anti-government opposition. There is no need to put his doubts into a front page article.

    SonnyTuckson

    Scripted by the Kremlin. Again. Nothing new here. Getting rid of one opponent by blaming another.

    irishmand -> SonnyTuckson

    Scripted by CIA Again. Nothing new here. Stage a murder, blame on somebody else.

    rodney9

    Perhaps it would be more to the point, and better journalism, to elaborate and contexualise the comments made by Nemtsov on Charlie Hebdo, or the German cartoon he published on his facebook side, as well as Nemtsov's personal attack on Kadyrov, rather than blanket denials that it has anything to do with insulting the prophet Mohammed. Fortunately, following a few links here in the comment section makes that all possible. That they are ignored here in the article is evidence once again of poor journalism, it's almost like being told don't bother to go there, it's not worth it, just keep on believing it was Putin. The Guardian published an editorial not so very long ago about " a cynical post-modern media strategy" all those Kremlin controlled channels manipulating the truth for daring to suggest 5 (sic) lines of enquiry, and how truth itself was "vanishing" in a flurry of what they called "weaponised relativism". CCTV cameras were conspicuously inoperative, some bigots speculated that a snow plough had been strategically sent in (Gary Kasparov) to mask the actual footage of the moment of the killing.

    We realise that this must be very disppointing for all those who wanted this to be a sure fire mafia hit in a "mafia state" carried out by a mafia boss, rather than an act of Islamic terrorism from fanatics that we have recently seen elsewhere in Paris and Copenhagen.

    We shouldn't forget that hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Chechnya against Charlie Hebdo, finding it all very provocative. I will probably watch France 24, that news channel might not be so hostile to looking at the real connections and Nemtsov's comments in depth rather than denials by an English newspaper.

    Simon311 -> rodney9

    Well the Guardian and others who have spent months telling us that the Russian media is not worth reading and watching, now quotes the Russian media when it agrees with thier view.

    This is almost mental illness in its inconsistency.

    Ludicrous - the Russian media is always wrong, until it says someting we like, then it is completely right.

    MentalToo

    Saw this headline at TASS:

    First suspects in Nemtsov murder identified - Federal Security Service

    Surprisingly it turned out the suspects was not FSB after all, but some of Kadyrov's lunatics arrested by FSB. Who could have guessed that.

    It seems they have found some, who are even more crazy than he is.

    daltonbernard

    ...some of Nemtsov's associates ... do not believe fanatics acting alone could have shot someone dead so close to the Kremlin.

    I mean, that's just dumb. It's not hard to shoot somebody. I don't see how the proximity to the Kremlin makes it any more difficult. You just ... do it. It takes all of a second or two to pull a trigger a few times. Unless the Russians have installed some kind of electromagnetic field around the Kremlin that magically stops guns from firing. But the article doesn't say they have, so I'm at a loss as to how "some of Nemtsov's associates" could be so irrational.

    seaspan -> daltonbernard

    Rumour's are flying in Moscow, and lazy journalists will report whatever they hear without putting it into a more understandable context or making better sense of it. What I've heard that makes more sense is that a Chechen fanatic muslim "motive" doesn't make any sense, even though someone from there could have been hired to kill Nemtsov -- the important point is that the motive remains open and officially obscured...

    Simon311 -> Havingalavrov

    Howd o you know

    a) He was a "complete professional"?

    b) Criminals make mistakes all the time

    c) You appear to be beleieving Russian media which you have said is full of lies.

    So self contradictory pompous rubbish.

    Yes you do not like Putin - got it.

    BunglyPete

    Make of this what you will but this seems to be the official line so don't expect much else

    In 2007 Boris Nemtsov gave an interview to the magazine "Expert", in which he stated that all the measures of President Vladimir Putin are aimed at increasing the birth rate, primarily in the regions populated by Muslims, and it is "extremely dangerous for the future of Russia". After that Nemtsov was accused by well-known representatives of the Muslim world of Islamophobia.

    In January 2015, the year after the execution of cartoonists from the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, the politician in his blog on the website of "Echo of Moscow" had justified the actions of the cartoonists, and wrote that "Islam is stuck in the middle ages", and called recent events the "Islamic Inquisition".

    A few days later, Nemtsov said that "Everyone is tired of Kadyrov's threats", and "it is time to arrest him". This happened after the head of Chechnya said very unflattering things about the opposition leader Mikhail Khodorkovsky and journalist Alexey Venediktov because of their support for the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo.

    Zaur Dadaev decided that Boris Nemtsov offended Muslims, and out of a false sense of patriotism and defense of religion decided to punish the politician

    http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2015/03/08/1375743.html

    Simon311 -> BunglyPete

    The US, Russia and Germany - you can't beat any of them for producing weird types.

    Simon311 -> RedTelecaster

    Whatever a "Putinbot" may be. SOunds like a new word for "commie" as it was used 40 years ago.

    Renfrow

    Reading the posts here it is clear to me that people that blamed Putin for this will continue to do so regardless of what evidence to the contrary is presented simply because it suits their agenda.

    FrancesSmith -> RedTelecaster

    go on help the neocons destroy eastern europe. do nuland and breedlove pay you are or do you do it for free?

    but in truth you just reveal the ugliness that lies at the heart of the demonisation of putin, and repel people. keep it up..................

    midnightschild10

    It's the silly season again. The Obama administration is demanding a thorough investigation of Nemtsov' s death. They don't want a whitewash. The US certainly knows a whitewash when it sees one. Our Justicell Department looked high and low in the White House and couldn't find one banker or CEO to hold responsible for the housing crises. ( They all hang out on Wall Street.) Given a second chance to do their job, they couldn't find any military/industrial contractor who committed fraud in either not building incinerators on US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan or built them but they could not be used because of shoddy workmanship. ( Should have asked soldiers returning home with respiratory problems due to trash pits.) And finally the DOJ was unable to find anyone responsible for the torture and rendition programs ( could have found Cheyney on Fox News continuing to do interviews.)

    So it shouldn't be too difficult for Russia to do a better job investigating the death of Nemtsov, since the US has set the bar so low.

    irgun777

    Shaun Walker writes about " Islamic speculation convenient for Kremlin '

    One of the suspects blow himself in traditional Islamic suicide tradition, others were charged in court hiding their faces from reporters. This is where Mr Walker, the speculation stops.

    [Mar 08, 2015] US Hawks Undermine Berlin's Peace Efforts in Ukraine - German Newspaper

    Mar 08, 2015 | Sputnik International

    The civil war in Ukraine has exposed a fundamental rift between the US and Europe in terms of vision and goals for the region, as powerful US hardliners are working tirelessly to escalate the crisis with a broader agenda in mind, Der Spiegel news magazine said.

    US hawks, including the likes of Victoria Nuland, the head of European affairs at the US State Department, and General Philip Breedlove, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, are seeking to destabilize Russia and undermine its influence. To that end they are trying to heighten tensions between the West and Russia over Ukraine, undermining peace efforts led by Germany and France. Although the US president currently supports the European initiative, he has "done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine," Der Spiegel said.

    A relatively calm situation in Ukraine's eastern regions following the latest Minsk agreements does not play into the hands of US hawks. So instead of being cautiously optimistic that the ceasefire holds, General Breedlove warned in late February that the situation "is getting worse every day."

    These and many other remarks made by the top NATO European commander with regard to Russia's alleged involvement in the Ukrainian crisis "stunned" and "alarmed" German leaders, since these claims are often not supported by the data provided by Germany's foreign intelligence agency BND, the news magazine said.

    General Breedlove "repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements," Der Spiegel pointed out. However, he refused to revise them telling the media outlet that "it is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide."

    Berlin is concerned that Breedlove's stance "could harm the West's credibility," Der Spiegel said. Consequently, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is determined to discuss the issue with his American counterpart John Kerry to rule out any possible misinterpretations in the future. However, on Saturday, Steinmeier downplayed the US-German differences highlighted in Der Spiegel's article by emphasizing that German officials "have no interest in any dispute emerging from this."

    Indeed, German authorities "have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute [between Germany and the US] is a fundamental one - and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action," Der Spiegel said.

    Moreover, while Germany and France seek to stabilize situation in Ukraine, US hardliners seem to have a different goal in mind. "For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow," the magazine said.

    See also:

    [Mar 07, 2015] Washington's Cloned Female Warmongers By Finian Cunningham

    What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Smear Campaigns, Bullying, Flattery ... All set of tricks of female sociopaths...
    February 09, 2014 | Information Clearing House

    What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender. But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in American male politicians - aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.

    Take Victoria Nuland - the US Assistant Secretary of State - who was caught using obscene language in a phone call about the European Union and the political affairs of Ukraine. In her previous posting as a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Nuland had the demeanor of a robotic matron with a swivel eye.

    Now in her new role of covertly rallying anti-government protesters in Ukraine, Nuland has emerged to sound like a bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll. In her leaked private conversation with the US ambassador to Kiev, the American female diplomat is heard laying down in imperious tones how a new government in Ukraine should be constituted. Nuland talks about "gluing together" a sovereign country as if it is a mere plaything, and she stipulates which members of the US-backed street rabble in Kiev should or should not be included in any Washington-approved new government in the former Soviet republic.

    We don't know who actually tapped and leaked Nuland's private call to the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt. It could have been the Ukrainian or Russian secret services, but, regardless, it was an inspired move to reveal it. For the disclosure, which has been posted on the internet, lays bare the subversive meddling agenda of Washington in Ukrainian internal affairs. Up to now, the Americans have been piously pretending that their involvement is one of a bystander supporting democracy from afar.

    But, thanks to the Nuland's foul-mouthed indiscretion, the truth is out. Washington, from her own admission, is acting like an agent provocateur in Ukraine's political turmoil. That is an illegal breach of international rules of sovereignty. Nuland finishes her phone call like a gangster ordering a hit on a rival, referring to incompetent European interference in Ukraine with disdain - "F...k the EU."

    What we are witnessing here is the real, ugly face of American government and its uncouth contempt for international law and norms.

    Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle for a brain.

    Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose and moronic than her male American peers.

    Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.

    Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world.

    Programmed Sherman accused Iran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons. "We share the same goal [as the warmonger Menendez] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And she went on to repeat threadbare, risible allegations that Iran is supporting international terrorism. That is a disturbing indication of the low level of political intelligence possessed by the US chief negotiator.

    "Iran also continues to arm and train militants in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Bahrain. And Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah continue," asserted Sherman without citing an iota of proof and instead relying on a stale-old propaganda narrative.

    The number three in the US State Department went on to say of the interim nuclear deal with Iran: "What is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms of a final deal or not. We have made it clear to Iran that, if it fails to live up to its commitments, or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask the Congress to ramp up new sanctions."

    Remember that Sherman and her State Department boss John Kerry are considered "soft on Iran" by the likes of Menendez, John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Mark Kirk, and the other political psychopaths in Washington. So, we can tell from Sherman's callous words and mean-minded logic that the scope for genuine rapprochement between the US and Iran is extremely limited.

    Sherman finished her performance before the Senate panel with the obligatory illegal threat of war that Washington continually issues against Iran: "We retain all options to ensure that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon."

    In the goldfish-bowl environment of Washington politics, perhaps such female officials are to be even more feared. The uniform monopoly of America's political class is dictated by militarism – weapons manufacturers, oil companies and Zionist lobbyists. The only way to "succeed" in this cesspool is to be even more aggressive and imperialist than your peers.

    Nuland and Sherman illustrate the cold-hearted logic at work in American robotic politics: it's a system programmed for imperialism and war, and it doesn't matter whether the officials are Democrat, Republic, male or female. They are all clones of a war criminal state.

    Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism.

    This article was originally published at Press TV

    [Mar 07, 2015] Germany Has Had Enough With US Neocons: Berlin "Stunned" At US Desire For War In Ukraine

    Nuland somewhat reminds Madeleine Albright. Both are so fund of bulling their opponents, that probably might be classified as female psychopaths... As one commenters noted "I take it that "hard-charging" is an American euphemism for foul of mouth and coarse of temperament?"
    Mar 07, 2015 | zerohedge.com

    While Russia's envoy to NATO notes that statements by the deputy head of NATO testify to the fact that the leaders of the bloc want to intervene in Russia's internal politics, and are "dreaming of Russian Maidan," Washington has a bigger problem... Germany. As Der Spiegel reports, while US President Obama 'supports' Chancellor Merkel's efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either with sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda."

    ... ... ...

    And as Der Spiegel reports, The Germans are not happy.

    ... ... ...

    Nuland Diplomacy

    Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back the White House in next year's presidential election, is an important voice in US policy concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia, even saying "I love Russia." Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.

    She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been known to take on an undiplomatic tone -- and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov, who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan protests. "No violence against the protesters or you'll fall," Nuland told him according to Asarov. She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the country's leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public.

    Nuland has also been open -- at least internally -- about her contempt for European weakness and is famous for having said "Fuck the EU" during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.

    When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe's resistance to arming Ukraine.

    On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who began coaching. "While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians defend against these systems," Nuland said. "It is defensive in nature although some of it has lethality."

    Jurassic

    general Breedwar or Breedhatred? Hes war maniac!

    cossack55

    Typical wingnut general. Notice you don't hear the grunts talkin' shit. Gotta go. Dr. Strangelove is about to start.

    XqWretch

    Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

    Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

    Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

    bania

    Breedlove? Heading up an army? Can't make this stuff up!!!

    Took Red Pill

    "Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine." We all are!

    chunga

    Hmmm...Nudelman and Kagan aren't from Mars or Venus are they?

    Urban Redneck

    Frau Ferkel is just a muppet cocktease, and so is the "concern". It's nothing but political cover for the political whores. If they were seriously alarmed, they would simply revoke General Ripper's diplomatic credentials and issue an arrest warrant for the psychopath.

    Lumberjack

    Read this:

    The Obscenely Easy Exile of Idi Amin

    https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/164/28440.html

    On a reporting trip to Saudi Arabia seven years ago, I went to Idi Amin's house. I had heard that Mr. Amin, the former Ugandan dictator who died last weekend at the age of 78, was living in Jidda, the Red Sea port, and I wanted to see for myself. Was it possible that a man who, in the 1970's, had ordered the deaths of 300,000 of his countrymen, raped and robbed his nation into endless misery and admitted to having eaten human flesh was whiling away his time as a guest of the Saudi government?

    It was. There, in a spacious villa behind a white gate, Mr. Amin made his home with a half-dozen of his 30 or so children. He was not there the day I rang (a son said he was out of town), but locals said he could often be seen pushing his cart along the frozen food section of the supermarket, being massaged at the health club, praying at the mosque. He had long ago abandoned his British-style military uniform for the white robe of the Saudi man, but as an African measuring 6-foot-3 and nearly 300 pounds, he did not exactly blend in.

    A former Sudanese colonel who worked as a manager at the local supermarket said, "People greet him and say, `Hello, Mr. President.' " Why? Wasn't he a savage dictator?

    "Oh yes" he used to eat people," the manager replied, laughing. "But this is our nature. We forget."

    But what would prompt the Saudi government to play host to such a man?

    The answer, when the question was posed to Saudi officials, was an excursion into the desert habits of hospitality, and Mr. Amin's conversion to Islam. His support for the Arab boycott of Israel in the 1970's certainly also endeared him to his hosts.

    During the nearly quarter-century of his soft exile, no nation tried to bring Mr. Amin to justice. A few years ago, after Spain's government went after Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, Human Rights Watch did bring up Mr. Amin's case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, but to no avail. Under international law, any nation, including Saudi Arabia, could have and should have prosecuted Mr. Amin.

    But, as Reed Brody, special counsel for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch, says, "If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get political asylum." Mr. Brody keeps a melancholy map on his wall of other tyrants gone free: Alfredo Stroessner, dictator of Paraguay, lives in Brazil; Haiti's Raoúl Cedras is in Panama; Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia is in Zimbabwe; Hissí¨ne Habré of Chad lives in Senegal. Today there is the International Criminal Court, which can bring a future Amin to justice, although the United States is among 100 countries that have shortsightedly declined to participate in the court.

    I was sorry not to have had a chance to talk to Mr. Amin directly. But those who did speak with him suggest that I missed little. An Italian journalist, Riccardo Orizio, asked him in 1999 whether he felt remorse. No, Mr. Amin replied, only nostalgia. Six years earlier, a British writer, Tom Stacey, saw him. At one point, Mr. Amin pulled from his pocket a paraphrase of Psalm 22 and commented: "Remember we are special to God. He sees a beauty in us few see."

    Harbanger

    "The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist LEFT to the camp of American conservatism."

    -Straight from the definition for the morons that don't know how to do research..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

    August

    I continue to believe that the US goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars, and thousands of Ukrainian lives, both of which are truly dirt cheap in Washington's calculus. This is to be followed by the USA's ultimately just walking away, leaving a broken Ukraine for its neighbors, chiefly Russia, to reconstruct.

    Every now and then, though, some US spokes-toady makes statements that imply that the USA actually wants a major war... with Russia. I hope and pray that this is merely Grand Chessboard Theatre, but I am starting to have doubts. For a taste of the motivational fare now offered to US "conservatives", you might want to take a look at the recently posted anit-Russia piece posted at National Review, which openly calls for regime change in Moscow. It's a well-written polemic which makes some sense... provided that you accept that Washington and Brussels are citadels of freedom and human rights, Russians are ignorant, drunken blockheads, and Putin is evil incarnate.

    sunaJ

    "I continue to believe that the US goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars,"

    In your estimation is the second part of this Kansas City Shuffle being Syria and pipelines to Europe, or are they also symptoms of some greater neocon fear, ie. Russian oil dominance in a petrodollar world?

    Jack Burton

    Breedlove is talking his book. His glory and promotions would increase and his power would expand the more he can talk the NATO into war. Breedlove will be secure in the command bunker, and like the Iraq war command, be fully secure while his men faced possible death and mutilation.

    The text book for this is Yugoslavia. Europe had brokered a few peace deals, but the USA stepped in and undercut them all with lies and flase intelligence, leading to several bloody wars. Right now Washington seeks the Yugoslavia solution, a long bloody war.

    Ignatius

    "According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public."

    Did Nuland also say that about Occupy to the Obummer administation?

    Escrava Isaura

    Ohh Boy.

    The US military industrial complex doesn't care about European press, or America press, for that matter. US military industrial complex doesn't' even care who the President is.

    Do you think the US military complex cares if the US government bails out lots of big lemons-banks, insurance, auto makers, airlines, and food stamps to the working poor? No, they could care less, because US military industrial complex is immune to budget constraints and they are the biggest supporters of failing industries and projects.

    Do you think that the US military complex cares for what industries the analysts and brokers at an investment firms such as JP Morgan, Goldman, or Rothschild's picks as winners for government contracts or a stock market bubble? Hell no, because they are the biggest winners.

    So, the Germans are stunned about NATO? Are you kidding me?

    Germany and NATO are branches of the US military industrial complex.

    johngaltfla

    Obama is a Neocon?

    Who'dathunkit!??!!?

    In reality, the world is sick of this bullshit. I'm sick of it. Rand Paul's approach is 1000% correct; quit meddling!

    Germany is correct to object to this because if we get involved in the Ukraine with Poland then Russia will be outside of Berlin with several brigades of tanks in days. The US nor NATO are ready for a major multi-front conflict unless they use nukes.

    Which wouldn't be all that bad because some of the US cities we would lose are a major part of the economic drag and societal/political problems we have at this time....

    Never mind. Fire away boys.

    krage_man

    The instutute of US presidency is shockingly weak.

    Basically, very little can Obama do if all career burocrats continue doing what they always doing.

    Obama is not able to get control of the goverment staff which demonstrate how weak leader he is and how unimportant any political office change is for foregn policy.

    Dems or Reps - no matter who is there will always be criminal actions on the world scine.

    sunaJ

    Germany needs to wake up NOW to the fact that this country is commanded by psychopathic, warmongering neocons, mitigated only by a willfully cluless and gutless president. NATO will prove a deathtrap for Germany.

    max2205

    Don't expect a lot of help from the old axis countries, Germany Italy Japan......neutered

    Questan1913

    Good point...but let's elaborate further: The US wrote the constitutions of Japan and Germany after the end of WWll. It also continues to occupy, militarily, both countries with approximately 50,000 military personnel in each and a huge naval presence in Japan.

    Neither conquered country has been able to recover a shred of its former sovereignty for 70 years! They are vassal states subject to the most ruthless hegemonic power since the Roman empire.

    ebworthen

    If Germany were really concerned about NATO they'd kick the U.S. Armed Forces out.

    This is political banter; the Germans need Russian NatGas and are playing both sides.

    They have guilt over the death of 20+ million Russians in WWII, but Russia is en export market - and they don't want their Eastern flank open.

    Just like Greece; they feel bad about WWII, but they want a downtrodden island to vacation on too.

    And Neocons? Both the Left and the Right are war happy pumpers of the M.I.C. here in the U.S.A.

    nope-1004

    Dude.... it's US hegemony at risk here. Pipelines and what not. Read up, pull your head out of the sand, and watch US foreign policy implode on itself. After all, WTF is the US meddling in Europe for anyway? Why are they there? What does the Ukraine have that the US or Russia needs?

    It's all about energy and how it flows to customers. The US has the most to lose, which is why they created the coup to overthrow the previously elected government in Ukraine.

    They are, without question, the most hypocritical government to ever grace God's green earth. They say one thing publicly and do the opposite in practice. And it appears they've got you sucked in too.

    malek

    Two points:

    1. The headline to me seems to indicate the path for the usual whitewash towards the "Democrats": currently a few US Neocons came to head the "Democratic" party like wolves in sheep clothing, but overall the leftists still hold the moral highground!

    2. It is curious German magazine Der Spiegel doesn't mention it's own role in this, posting a headline STOP PUTIN NOW on it's frontpage after MH-17 had been shot down.

    JustObserving

    The Nobel Prize Winner and the Neocons have always wanted to put Russia in its place and the destabilization of Ukraine was the starting point. It was payback for Putin protecting Assad and granting asylum to Snowden. USA wants Russia on its knees and complete full spectrum domination with no one to question US hegemony and infinite spying. Unfortunately Putin stands in the way and he must be demonized and destroyed.
    Victoria Nuland Lied to US Congress about Phantom Russian Hoards in Ukraine

    On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.

    She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."

    She absurdly called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at peace.' "

    Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia's heartland – with menacing US bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.

    Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs "peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."

    "They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms."

    Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych's police showed remarkable restraint.

    Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and other violence.

    Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy whatever.

    Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.

    Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a US-installed fascist dictatorship.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/victoria-nuland-lied-to-us-congress-about-p...

    The Neocons have killed millions in Iraq and got away scot-free:


    US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/victoria-nuland-lied-to-us-congress-about-p...

    Ignatius

    The basis of neocon philosophy is a LIE, that if you don't have a real enemy just make shit up.

    How then can one "debate" a neocon with anything other than a baseball bat?

    Their starting point is that neocons will lie if they have to and probably also just for the fun of it.

    Psychopaths.

    JustObserving

    The Nobel Prize Winner has bombed 7 Muslim countries, destabilized Ukraine, attempted a coup in Venezuela, lied about sarin use in Syria to almost start a war, assassinated US citizens without a trial, regularly drones women and children and wedding parties and yet is the most admired man in the world in a Gallup poll in 2014. I would cry at humanity's stupidity, cruelty and corruption but I prefer to laugh. You love your lying war criminals then you will get lot more war.

    yogibear

    Meet Neocon "Doughnut Dolly" Victoria Nuland

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/12/18/meet-neocon-doughnut-do...

    Nuland's career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the interests of Russia's ally, Serbia.

    markar

    Angie needs to end her triangulating charade and choose sides. Keeping a foot in the Russian door while appeasing her Neocon masters in the West won't work much longer. She knows Obama is a spineless puppet who won't back her and Ukraine is a failed state run riot by neo Nazi thugs and oligarchs.

    What's it going to be Angie, an act of heroism or taking Germany down with the Western ship?

    lesterbegood

    Angie like Obama, Nuland, et al, is another political puppet/spokesperson for the power behind the money.

    Winston Churchill

    Which means her puppet masters are changing horses mid race.

    No honor amongst thieves and/or psychopaths.

    HowdyDoody

    I wonder what on earth the CIA/NSA has on her that keeps her putting the interests of the US above her own country.

    Wile-E-Coyote

    Come on Germany tell the USA to fuck right off............................. won't happen.

    css1971

    35 US military bases in Germany say you are absolutely correct.

    Son of Loki

    Simply look at the quality of our State dept -- Nuland, etc -- The average IQ and emotional intelligence there has to be at an all-time low.

    Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thoroughly versed in history, politics, economics and debate.

    yogibear

    "Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thorougly versed in history, politics, economics and debate."

    People are used to dumb and dumber DC. It matches the rest of the country.

    Stumpy4516

    The statespeople may have been more intelligent at one time but their actions (covert murders, regime change, wars, etc.) have always been the same.

    [Mar 07, 2015] Russia detains two men in Boris Nemtsov murder inquiry by Chis Johnston

    Note: Guardian did not risked to open comments for this article. Should somebody put a tattoo on Chis Johnston right arm with the words "Cue Bono", the classic Roman approach to such crimes. Why Putin on peak of his popularity would decided to eliminate political cadaver by converting him into real, much more dangerous cadaver. But there are two parties who can benefit from this killing. As the guy who with Chubais and his friends from Harvard sold Russia assets, he incite such level of hate in Russia that even 1% of votes (that means strictly Moscow fifth column of neoliberal globalization) are way too much for him. Why Chris Johnson is so shy to name them is understandable and despicable. Even presstitutes should sometimes behave... Also analogies with Politkovskaya killing and Litvinenko killing are way to obvious to ignore. The USA now try to fight off the challenge that Putin version of state capitalism and Chinese version of "neoliberalism within communist dogma" present and rising tide of nationalism in Europe, which threatens the fundamental postulates of neoliberalism and the USA role as Kremlin of neoliberalism (if we consider this neoliberal globalization as replay of Communist International ideas on a new level). Ukrainian nationalists, while reasonably good at destruction of the economy, proved to be incapable to rule the country and face financial default. They can resort to desperate means to postpone the day of reckoning. Russian newspaper Vzglyad noted that version of the involvement of Chechens fighting in the Ukraine was one of the most plausible. "Izvestia" citing law enforcement sources reported that the organizer of the assassination could be the Ukrainian security services, and assassins - Chechen militants from the so-called battalion named Dzhokhar Dudayev, which fights in Ukraine against DND and LNR.
    .
    By the way, the commander of this detachment Adam Osmayev was previous held as defendant in the case of the preparation of the assassination of President Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the plan was to discredit the Russian government and destabilize the political situation in the country.
    Mar 07, 2015 | The Guardian

    Russian authorities have detained two men in connection with the murder of the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

    The pair were named as Anzor Gubashev and Zaur Dadayev, both from the North Caucasus, a volatile region of southern Russia plagued by insurgency.

    Nemtsov was deputy prime minister in the 1990s in the government of Boris Yeltsin.

    ... ... ...

    Putin has called the killing a "provocation", vowing that everything would be done to convict those who committed a "vile and cynical murder".

    [Mar 07, 2015] The killing of my friend Boris Nemtsov must signal the death of appeasement by Garry Kasparov

    This man can do anything for money. What a low-lifer. Looks like talent in chess does not extend to other human qualities. Of cause NED/IRI money does not smell, and that means its quite natural for Gary Kasparov to become a buddy of neocons. From comments: "The constant attacks on Putin from the MSM, are an indicator of just how desperate the elite are to instigate some form of rebellion against him in Russia -- hence the Nemtsov assassination. "

    March 6, 2015 | The Guardian

    ID4534229

    Kasparov, you should be ashamed of yourself. A shill of the west, much like Klitchko. Are you really complaining about Russia when you share a platform with Saakashvili ? A man who is wanted back home for corruption? You are a useful idiot, like Klitchko and like Saakashvili. The only difference between you and the criminal and corrupt billionaires expelled from Russia is that you don't have the money.

    Why do these "Russian" dissenters, once they leave their country, immediately end up in US Senate hearings and with US politicians who would love to see Russia reduced to a mess? Have you no shame?

    caotama 6 Mar 2015 17:47

    "Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped". So you are buddies with the neocons? Case closed.

    "Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili..." Isn't that discredited IMF puppet on some wanted list?

    "Russian forces nearly reached Tbilisi before they turned back". Why did they turn back, Gaz?

    irishmand -> Treabhar Mac Oireabaird 6 Mar 2015 17:31

    If you don't like the West, why are you staying here?

    I don't like what americans did to the west. The democracy we heard so much about is being dismantled quickly. The school education is ruined. University education is becoming less and less affordable. Medical system in US is almost the genocide of poor. The media are lying on industrial basis. The moods in the society are pro war, people want blood. I am trying to fight it explaining that the west is walking towards abyss but you don't want to listen. Many people call me a Kremlyn troll. I don't care, but it demonstrates the points I just made.

    BMWAlbert

    Meanwhile in Odessa, far from the front lines, all is tranquil...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HacQe4GYIY#t=138

    MarVas

    The "More than 100,000 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow" line links to a page that says "Police put numbers at 7,000, while those involved said the protest drew 50,000."

    After the event police adjusted their numbers to 21,000 but apparently it is not worth mentioning.
    Even if provided by promoters' numbers are correct, it's still less than 0.5% of Moscow population.
    Is it a good reason to openly lie?

    HollyOldDog -> MarVas

    Strange how foreign newspapers always try to clutch at invisable straws. Protestors usually overestimate their numbers but the police on viewing airborne video have the advantage when estimating crowd numbers.

    There was supposed to be a protest march in a city in Siberia where the protestors informed the police that thousands would turn up but only 12 were present on the day. The Police could be still searching for someone to pay for the extra police overtime for the non event.

    PlatonKuzin

    "Boris Nemtsov's whole career was not aimed at helping Russia, but at the interests of foreign states," said Nikolai Starikov, one of Anti-Maidan's leaders. "Boris Nemtsov is the first victim of the Maidan in Russia… He was killed by his American curators."

    I also think so.

    Obfusgator

    Anti-negotiator Kasparov sounds like your proto-typical war and conflict addicted general, always ready to sacrifice millions of chess piece lives. He should stick to what he does best (playing games) and let his anger at Putin's Russia subside.

    We're all seeing bloody red at the moment Garry, but aren't you sick of war? You could have mentioned in your article the US funded coup in the Ukraine that led to Russia moving to protect assets there and you omitted important details regarding the increasing encirclement of Russia by US/NATO forces.

    In case you haven't noticed, when the US sticks its nose into rival countries' business (sanctions first closely followed by militarily assistance) things get out of control.

    We don't need that playing out again, now do we?

    Russia's problems are hers to sort out.

    notEvenNibling -> Obfusgator

    Ukraines problems are "hers" to sort out.

    Obfusgator -> notEvenNibling

    Ukraine's US coup problem.

    Parangaricurimicuaro

    Do you remember Iraks Ahmed Chalabi? The guy that pushed for the war? Kasparov is the 2015 version

    Russia will always be my country, but it is difficult to imagine returning while Putin is still in the Kremlin.

    EugeneGur

    No, it aren't, my friend. Russia isn't you country - you betrayed it, you are openly inviting foreign powers to attack it. Just because you say "Putin" instead of "Russia", you think it makes a difference? Assuming the policy of "isolation and condemnation" is successful, do you think Putin will suffer or do you even suspect that ordinary Russians will feel the pain? Do you care?

    This is a good article showing very clearly what kind of "opposition" this is. For the life of me, I cannot imaging an opposition of any kind, say, in the US or any European country, inviting foreign countries to start a war against the homeland and surviving. But it's perfectly fine in Russia. He is downright pleading with the West: don't be afraid, you won't have to defeat the entire Russian army or start WWIII. Just "inflict enough damage". The man is disgusting. He is also lying. It would be necessary to defeat the entire Russia, if it comes to that. Russia is not populated only by Karparovs.

    The opposition movement that Boris and I believed in, and that Boris died for, should be openly supported, the way the west once championed the Soviet dissidents.

    So, the "opposition" is a Western-paid performer, a.k.a. a whore.

    Ronald Reagan told those of us behind the iron curtain that he knew it was our leaders, not us, who were his adversaries.

    I do believe that. Personally, Garry did very well as did Nemtsov. But the rest of Russia did turn out to be Reagan's adversary, at least, it was treated as such.

    I do hope you Westerners understand now and believe us when we say that this 'opposition" has absolutely no influence in Russia, and most people have nothing but contempt for them. You are wasting your money paying them.

    PeregrineSlim

    "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts…The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way….And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe." Vladimir Putin, Munich 2007

    willpodmore

    The Minsk peace agreement's terms included 'Withdrawal of all foreign armed groups, weapons and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory'. In direct violation of the agreement, the US government announced in late February that it would send 300 troops to Ukraine to help train Ukraine's forces, and Prime Minister David Cameron announced on 24 February that 75 British troops would also be sent to help train Ukraine's forces.

    AlexUspen

    Kasparov: "More than 100,000 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow last Sunday, a number that gives the lie..."

    Well, it really does.

    The link gets you to a Guardian story, putting the number of rally participants somewhere between 7,000 and 50,000. The 100K figure is repeated in the picture caption… This is some very strange math.

    PeregrineSlim

    The opposition in Russia will go nowhere as long as they function as errand boys for the american empire.

    MyDogLikesPorridge

    With Nemtsov gone, Kasparov and his ilk will be again trying to sell Navalny as the next saviour of Russia. Below is an excerpt from an article published in May/2011. It is both frighteningly relevant and prescient of events to come.

    "But the following interview was much more interesting. It's with The New Times, a Russian magazine... Navalny says "I think that the power in Russia will change not by an election process; they can elect whoever they like in March of 2012, but everything will be finished by April", and then clarifies – "by something like a Tunis scenario". Answering the question "Do you expect the wave from the bottom", he says – "No, I don't wait for it, I'm organizing it. We don't know when it will happen, but it's within our power to bring it closer. The current Russian authorities are thieves and swindlers. We must fight against them, exert pressure on them, create problems for them, and involve more and more people in creating problems. This pressure can be of different kinds – from simple negotiations to mobs on the streets that drag civil servants from their cabinets and hang them. And the faster authorities realize that and start negotiating, the less plausible the violent scenario becomes. I don't think that any political technologies or twitter can make people come out on the streets and chase away thieves and swindlers, so normal people could take over." (emphasis mine) .

    Well… first of all, let's just recall that every state has the right to defend its constitutional system by force, and such citadels of democracy as the UK and the US have no qualms about invoking it. Secondly, the Russian criminal code has the article "Violent takeover of power or violent retention of power", punishable by from 12 to 20 years in prison. And I don't remember anything in the Constitution that says that hanging of government officials is a legitimized feature of a democratic process. The code also has the article "Calls to extremist actions". But let's leave that aside for a moment.

    Navalny clearly states that he's working towards a typical colour revolution. First, I don't know what can be more undemocratic than a handful of raucous people changing power by riots and violence, simply because they don't like the government, the outcome of some election or any other quality. The opinion of the rest of the people is commonly ignored. It's also usually accompanied by tens or hundreds of corpses. Second, a common misconception is that power is transferred from bad authoritarian groups to "the people". That's a brazen lie; power simply gets transferred from one group to another, and the benefactor is well-known beforehand. Did anyone doubt that Yuschenko would become president when the Orange revolution succeeded? Or Saakashvili in Georgia? Third, and this is the most important point – there have been plenty of such revolutions. Has a single country benefited from it? Saakashvili's more and more authoritarian rule and the unleashed war are something that the Georgians dreamed of in 2003? Yuschenko's rating lying in the gutter is what the Ukranians stood in Maidan Square for? The deposing of Bakiev in 2010 by yet another revolution was worth launching the first one in 2005? Navalny suggests that "normal people will take over". Needless to say, that one statement will inspire laughter in any politologist worth his salt. Will these "normal people" spontaneously inherit another law framework and its institutions? Obviously, no. Then we have to take their word that after they come into power, these mysteriously benevolent "normal people" will start to limit their own authoritiy in favour of common people. Please remind me; how often has that happened in history? But OK, let's be believers for a while, so let's assume that they really are that incorruptible. In order to improve governance, the state should have better institutions and laws, so after the coup someone will have to write them. But what's stopping "normal people" from drafting them now, even promoting them? Maybe the current power will adopt them, so there will be no need for a revolution! And finally, who will determine the suitability of these people? Navalny?

    I sincerely hope that this whole interview is just idle thoughts, and Navalny doesn't vest any serious meaning in them. But alas, evidence suggests the contrary. All the traditional components are present – branding authorities as hopelessly corrupt and despotic, the government's consummate demonization and alienation; praise from abroad of one group, presenting them as progressives; the preparing of key people in the West. It's also useful to attach to the big picture the recent interview of Kasparov, in which he repeats Vice-President Joe Biden's threat that if Putin should be reelected in 2012, the US will topple him with a colour revolution.

    PeregrineSlim

    The Washington War Party is shipping off its troops to the Ukraine in the coming week in defiance of the Minsk agreement.

    sensitivepirate

    It is not about right or wrong, because in this case there are wrongs on both sides.

    Here we see the United States located on the other side of the world, standing up for its interests and investments in owning and controlling Ukrainian oil, gas, coal, manufacturing, transportation, strategic location, and agricultural resources in a country without any Americans.

    Here we see Russia standing up for Russians.

    Be careful what you wish for. With Russia, your ideals may never be realized.

    henrihenri -> sensitivepirate

    We live in world deprived of ideals. Money!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q&feature=player_detailpage

    therealbillythefish

    "with the belief that the days of changing Europe's borders by force"

    The Serbs of Kosovo were disabused of that belief by NATO.

    therealbillythefish Sceptical Walker

    The KLA started a campaign of murder and were suppressed with much less brutality than the yanks showed in places like Fallujah.

    NATO handed Kosovo to the human organ traffickers of the KLA with the result that non-Albanians have been driven out and the economy is a basket case with thoussnds of Kosovans attempting to claim asylum in the EU every month.

    johnbonn

    Sanctions are not appeasement, so what is he talking about. Kiev has already done its best to destroy the east where ethnic Russians live.

    If he wants something stronger, don't worry. The UK and the US are preparing for the invasion by restarting the civil war.
    The Guardian does not report that the largest oil companies in the west have paid large amounts of money to Ukraine for the rights to drill off the Crimean coast.

    These companies can't get their money back, so the west must invade.

    McCain and Kerry and Cameron will insure that he and Europe will soon get their war with Russia. Sadly this will bring a major realignment of the middle east to this major war.

    frombrussels

    ....Elephants NEVER forget, they say ......People however are the worst "forgetters"!.....

    The Ukraine mess and all its horrible consequences started when Nuland b*tch and CIA decided to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected, yet pro russian president, as a consequence of which Putin took back HIS Crimea and people in E Ukraine decided they wanted to belong to Russia ......

    It s as easy as that....let s make it complicated though, to justify deliverance of lethal weapons to Ukraine by "godfather" USA !

    amcalabrese2

    Or maybe we (the US in particular and the West in general) needs to realize that this is not our war. Is Russia really a threat to the us? Russia is not the Soviet Union. Unlike the days of the USSR, there are no armies of people in the west willing to do the party's bidding. Those days the Soviets were a deep threat to us. Had the Soviets won, freedom would have been extinguished. And the Soviets could have won. The Russians are having trouble paying their state employees.

    nnedjo

    Given that we are talking about a chess genius, and with regard to this very eloquent text that he wrote now, Garry Kasparov, without a doubt, is an extremely capable man. That is why it is a very pity that such a man has not found the right way to help his country. As I already said, this text of Kasparov is really very eloquently written, but besides that, it's full of nonsense. That a man of such intelligence can write so many things contrary to common sense, can only be explained by his blind hatred against Putin's Russia.

    But, for now, I will mention only one of the nonsense that Garry Kasparov wrote here.
    He says, "police state is very good at keeping the monopoly of violence for themselves, and given that prominent opposition politician was killed in the immediate vicinity of the Kremlin, the chances that this occurred without any involvement of Russian security services is vanishingly small."

    So, if the goal was to remove a vocal critic of the Kremlin, why was it necessary to do so near the very Kremlin? Does the state that holds the monopoly of violence could not do it in any other, less significant place. I do not see any sense in it, that the security services killed prominent opposition leaders at also prominent places, and not in some other places.

    Especially those security services who are trying to maintain a monopoly of violence, as they are also trying to maintain the illusion of safety in the country, even when it is not like that. So, for Kasparov probably would not look anything absurd, even that Boris Nemtsov was killed at the same time when Putin and his entourage crossed the Red Square, and that the bullets that are missed Nemtsov whizzed around Putin's head. Or, perhaps Putin's involvement in the murder would be even more apparent for Kasparov that Nemtsov was killed in the lobby of Putin's office, and there would be no wonder that the Russian security services have not thought of it first.

    I will repeat once again. In addition to being the chess genius Garry Kasparov is obviously a very talented writer. However, if he intends to devote to such a profession even more, I would recommend him not to write crime stories, but of another type, or from some other genre.

    SalmanShaheen

    It seems unlikely Putin had Nemtsov killed. What would he have to gain?

    dropthemchammer -> SalmanShaheen

    It would send a message to other around him.
    If the sanctions are starting to bite and people close to Putin muttering then this action would get them to hold their tongues.

    Oskar Jaeger -> SalmanShaheen

    No man, no problem (J V Stalin).

    henrihenri -> Oskar Jaeger

    There was a man, true, but there wasn`t a problem.

    FrancesSmith

    I'm wondering. Here in the UK we could do with a better opposition, and we could also do with a better electoral system, and the ownership of the press is a serious issue, and the current government has appointed its close associates to run the BBC. And what about the way our political parties are funded, corrupt or what?

    But what if there was some rich UK chess player went to the USA and started writing articles in the foreign press asking them to intervene and remove our elected government.

    ok, we haven't invaded anywhere recently, and we haven't had an opposition leader shot dead, no need really they can't get past the tory press.

    But just imagine how you would feel, putin demonisers, if there was someone from the UK talking about our government like this, and asking for intervention, and trying to impose a new government on us that has minimal support in the country.

    ApfelD

    The opposition movement that Boris and I believed in, and that Boris died for, should be openly supported

    Kasparov makes me laugh
    He is asking for the open support from the US
    It's like Alex Salmond will ask Putin about the missile strike on London

    PSmd

    For all Kasparov's ideals for liberal transparency and a capitalist economy, what our press seems to not emphasise is that the Communists are the big opposition in Russia. They are the ones kept out possibly by United Russia, certainly by Yeltsin. They are big in towns and cities, among pensioners. In fact, theire following is a bit like UKIP, they recognise the grimmer past, but the certainties that came before the deracinatiing effects of globalisation.

    BunglyPete

    Its worrying just how easily history can be rewritten.

    This BBC report titled Georgia 'started unjustifiable war' says

    The shelling of Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital) by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia," the report says.
    It adds later: "There is the question of whether [this] use of force... was justifiable under international law. It was not."
    It also says Georgia's claim that there had been a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before the outbreak of war could not be "sufficiently substantiated", though it said there was evidence of a lower-level military build-up.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8281990.stm

    Now it does go on to say that Russia's response was over the top and illegal too, but the key point is it began with Saakashvili, Kasparov's ally, shelling a city.

    Now we are told the conflict was provoked by Putin, is proof of his imperialistic plans, and that Saakashvili is a person we should take seriously.

    If you want to do so I won't stop you, but to do so is foolish given the evidence against the Georgian regime from 2008.

    Renfrow

    Wow. Gary had turned into quite a radical. This article is definitely designed for the far right western audience. No wonder his support in Russia is close to 0.

    aprescoup

    Navalny is the first Russian opposition figure of any stature. Kasparov lost his credibility amongst Russians by becoming an obvious lackey of the West. Nemtsov never had any credibility amongst Russians because he could never clean himself of the tarnish of being associated with the Yeltsin years.

    Navalny has an altogether different stature, and does have credibility with Russians, but probably only in the Moscow region. Navalny does not lick Western arses as much as Kasparov and Nemtsov because he knows what arse-licking of Westerners will do to his credibility amongst Russians.

    In an October 2014 interview with Ekho Moskvy, Navalny said that he would not return Crimea to Ukraine if he were to become the President of Russia but that a "normal referendum" should be held in Crimea to decide what country the peninsula belongs to. Interestingly the West does not listen to the only Russian opposition figure with any proven credibility amongst Russians, hence Western policy-making towards Russia is becoming ad-hoc and ineffective.

    MacCosham -> aprescoup

    No, Zyuganov is the first opposition figure in Russia. The fact that he is not a US government stooge does not change this.

    FrancesSmith -> MacCosham

    But he's a communist! I just have a feeling, though I may be wrong, that these right wing neocons in the US wouldn't want to see Zyuganov replace Putin.

    Though they should perhaps be a little careful what they wish for as according to wikipedia Boris Nemstov and others said after the 1996 election that the communists should have won.

    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html

    geedeesee -> Germaan

    "The fact is that Putin unleashed war against Ukraine..."

    Except it was Kiev regime which sent tanks over to Donbass to attack the separatists, and we saw the people come out and plead with the tank crews not to attack them. Then the Kiev regime sent aircraft to bomb the civilians - bombing their own people! Putin didn't tell the Kiev regime to send tanks and military aircraft to deal with civilians. The Kiev regime called it an anti-terror operation.

    elias_ -> richard1

    AFAIK the ruskies didn't invade georgia in 2008. Georgians attacked and killed numerous russian soldiers operating under UN mandate. In response russians gave the georgian military (partly trained by nato) a jolly good spanking before going back to where they were before.

    aprescoup

    Mexico's human rights crisis is even worse than Russia's, but no one in the West cares. The real reason Putin is so disliked by the West is not because Russians suffer under Putin, but because Russia under Putin (unlike Russia under Yeltsin) no longer takes orders from Washington. China's human rights crisis is also worse than Russia's, and again no one in the West cares, because everyone in the West knows that China is more powerful than the US, and that China will never take its orders from Washington. What particularly upsets Washington is that the US is losing its soft-power: the US has no soft power over China, no soft power over Russia under Putin, and no soft power over Israel under Netanyahu.

    ID5868758

    Is Kasparov's support in Russia 5%, or.5%?

    MacCosham -> ID5868758

    0.05%

    JohnMc2015

    I respect Mr Kasparov as an outstanding chess master very much, but his biting a cop in 2012 tells me that a chess player's skill has nothing to do with a serious opposition leader's decent behaviour who really could lead people. Even if such leader finds appropriate words, there appears to be some doubts concerning his adequacy in a critical situation. An opposition leader is supposed to be a cool cucumber.

    PeregrineSlim

    Kasparov seems to have lost sight of the fact that the chess board is in Ukraine and he is a long way from being able to move any pieces.

    BloodOnTheWattle -> PeregrineSlim

    he is still upset at Deep Blue...he cried rivers over the loss. so you must forgive him.

    ID5868758

    What the hell is the matter with the US Senate, hosting such a fringe politician from Russia, and one calling for the overthrow of the elected leader of a sovereign nation? Despicable behavior from the "land of the free", apparently you're "free" only if your opinion is in line with that of the US, otherwise we will make sure we help you change your mind.

    StatusFoe ID5868758

    What the hell is the matter with the US Senate

    What do you mean? He's the US establishment's man in Russia, a Carrier of the Flame and honoured Bilderberger.

    ApfelD Magyar2lips

    let us nuke Hungary and Russia and that's all
    wait a minute
    and Azerbaijan
    and Iran
    and Ukraine (the most corrupted country according to Graun)
    and Saudi Arabia (for gay rights)
    and North Korea
    and Switzerland+Lichtenstein (for the tax avoidance schemes)
    and France (Madonna said that they looks like Nazis)
    and Germany (they don't speak English)

    BloodOnTheWattle ApfelD

    and Germany (they don't speak English)

    most germans do..but lets nuke 'em all the same...the bastards tried to talk to Putin about peace...peace imagine that Merkel escaped our firewall..

    geedeesee

    Russians are questioning events:

    "Since the current US ambassador arrived in Russia, they killed Nemtsov, while he was in Georgia they killed Zhvaniya, and in Ukraine-Gongadze. Coincidence?"

    Each of the three was a prominent opposition figure, and in each case his death had led to political upheaval. To quote Ian Fleming, "once is a happenstance, twice--a coincidence, three times--enemy action."

    dmitryfrommoscow

    Garri, why didn't you address the U.S. Congress with philippics in the 1990's when the oligarchs who propped up Yeltsin were pumping tens of billions of dollars out of Russia every month? When millions of your fellow-countrymen had to live from hand to mouth because the economy was totally divested of funds and lay dysfunctional? When people were dying at hospitals because there was nothing except aspirin there? When selling a bunch of homegrown dill or parsley at a local market was a matter of life and death for innumerable babushkas on a vast space from Vladivostok to the Baltic shores? Give us an answer...

    aprescoup

    As long as Russian opposition figures are arse-lickers of the West, cosying up with MPs, MEPs and Congress members, they will not mobilise Russians against Sistema Putin. The struggle between the West and Russia is between the West's idea of a Post-Westphalian order and Russia's (and China's and Israel's) preference for staying put with the Westphalian order that has been around since 1648. Anyone who does not understand the difference between a political Westphalian order (based around nation-States) and a technocratic Post-Westphalian order (based around technocratic organizations, eg Swift for finance payments, BIS for banking regulation, ICANN for Internet), and the consequences of the West's attempt to change its imperial control over the world from a Westphalian Empire to a Post-Westphalian Empire, is a fool. Ironically, it may have been the USSR that launched Post-Westphalianism with Comintern (Third International, 1919-1943).

    willpodmore

    Kasparov is another warmonger. NATO continues its march to the east. NATO aims to seize control of Ukraine, to complete the hostile glacis to Russia's west. The US government considered it had exclusive rights to run Ukraine: senior US diplomat Richard Holbrooke absurdly declared that Ukraine was part of 'our core zone of security'.

    The US government is pursuing Zbigniew Brzezinski's strategy of trying to draw Russia into a 'prolonged and costly' war in Ukraine. Brzezinski had used this strategy in the 1980s, when he armed Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan as part of a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The US government aimed to do to Russia via Ukraine what it did to the Soviet Union via Afghanistan. Ukraine would become another wasteland of death and destruction, with the constant risk of a wider war, and Russia would descend into chaos.

    US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the head of both the US European Command and NATO in Europe, insisted that we could not 'preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option' in Ukraine. At the Munich Security Conference, Republican senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham poured scorn on European negotiations with President Vladimir Putin. McCain summed up Merkel's speech at Munich, which included a statement of opposition to arming Ukraine, with one word: 'foolishness'. He added, "I can assure you that [Putin] will not stop until he has to pay a much higher price."

    Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for 'full scale war' with Russia. Military spokesman Andriy Lysenko stated, "there is no ceasefire, and so there is no precondition for a pull-back of heavy weapons." Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh announced that his private army and the Azov Battalion would ignore the agreement and fight on.

    PeregrineSlim

    As Milne points out, the West is already in the process of violating the Minsk agreement:

    But it's certainly grist to the mill of those pushing military confrontation with Russia. Hundreds of US troops are arriving in Ukraine this week to bolster the Kiev regime's war with Russian-backed rebels in the east. Not to be outdone, Britain is sending 75 military advisers of its own. As 20th-century history shows, the dispatch of military advisers is often how disastrous escalations start. They are also a direct violation of last month's Minsk agreement, negotiated with France and Germany, that has at least achieved a temporary ceasefire and some pull-back of heavy weapons. Article 10 requires the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Ukraine.

    ApfelD -> StatusFoe

    it's difficult to understand why Russians don't like Kasparov

    StatusFoe -> ApfelD

    He certainly can come accross as an arrogant prick.

    MacCosham -> richard1

    What bollocks. Putin is not coming close to anyone. What is happening is that anti-establishment parties in Europe, whether left-wing (Die Linke, Podemos, Syriza), centrist (Five Stars) or right wing (FN, Fidesz) are following public opinion which sees that the establishment parties (socialists and conservatives) are puppets of US-based big money.

    guster86

    "I will continue to do whatever I can to draw support to the cause of returning Russia to the path of democracy."

    Possibly sacrifice a few pawns.

    dropthemchammer -> guster86

    You say this after Putin had his opposition assassinated lol

    Simon311 -> dropthemchammer

    Did he? You have certain knowledge of this? Cause Global warming too did he.

    jonno61

    Kasparov has absolutely not credibility on this matter. Why the Guardian choose to publish his propaganda is beyond me ?

    RobHardy -> jonno61

    Fits into a general pattern of propaganda propagation by the Guardian in the last few years, probably much longer. no shortage of fellow travelers for the US management of Vichy Britain.

    altergeist

    "But we must cease to be surprised by the violence and hatred emanating from Russia today if we are to combat it successfully."

    I am ceaselessly amazed by the near-complete unity in the chorous of anti-Russia/Putin propaganda.

    " prominent critic of the regime,"

    With roughly 5% popular support, and quite widely reviled for his part in the Yeltsin era pillage of Russia, when male life expectancy fell about 10 years in just 10 years - a spectacular collapse in living standards. 'Prominent' indeed. And certainly hardly a plausible electoral threat, his prominence and influence is largely hyped to western audiences. One could easily argue he was worth more to western sponsors dead than alive, while Putin had very little to gain from his murder, since it would be eagerly and predictably be blamed upon him... as we have seen: Many western media outlets were ready with their accusations.

    "such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili - discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime."

    Says the belligerent in the recent, if brief, South Ossetian military adventure.

    " cite the official statements of a dictatorship "

    An elected dictator. Whatever next!?

    Look I'm not saying Putin didn't do it, nor that I don't think he's capable of murdering his opponents, nor that I don't think he has murdered any in the past, but even the Russian opposition has quite broadly said it doesn't think he's responsible, that this is a 'provocation.' But shall we wait for some evidence to be in this time? It's all starting to smack a bit of MH17, Assad's chemical weapons, Iraq's WMDs, 45 minutes etc... Accusations without evidence, or bare-faced lies. It certainly does fit with a pattern of CIA led destabilization but then again, maybe Putin has used that plausibility as a cover. Who knows!?

    What I do know is that this wholly unnecessary, largely western provoked West-East showdown is easily and singularly the most potentially dangerous geopolitical situation of my lifetime. Fascinating, but terrifying. Can't the US and Russian leadership just realise that they have a lot in common (democratic deficit, corrupted oligarchic rule, surveillance state, a long history of brutality) and get along?!

    Socraticus

    How much credence can be given to any of Kasparov's claims when he grossly exaggerates that "more than 100,00 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow last Sunday"?

    According to the Guardian, the "Police put numbers at 7,000, while those involved said the protest drew 50,000".

    Meanwhile, in other international publications the figure has been cited to be closer to 21,000 and "not tens of thousands as reported by some media outlets", further elaborating that "The reason why official estimates are closer to the real numbers is because all demonstrators had to pass through metal detectors before joining the march and were registered by computers".

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/01/boris-nemtsov-marchers-moscow-honour-murdered-opposition-politician-live-updates)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/01/boris-nemtsov-marchers-moscow-honour-murdered-opposition-politician-live-updates#block-54f305cde4b011581586e731

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/simple-murder-boris-nemtsov-150302081839658.html

    uracan

    Kasparov really is an idiot.

    If Putin for whatever reason is deposed, does he really think the traitorous liberals will get into power.

    It is the communists with their 20% of the vote that will gain the most.

    It will take decades for the liberals to regain any credibility amongst the Russian general population.

    CharlesBradlaugh

    I'm on the left of politics and view the USA's imperialism with disdain and fear, but I agree 100% with this article, you have to be blind not to see that Putin is a dangerous adventurer who will undertake any aggression that will bolster his position.

    SirHenryRawlins -> CharlesBradlaugh

    I don't believe for one second you are on the left. You view the USA's imperialism with disdain and fear, US meddling in Ukraine, the backing of government that took power after the coup, and then say Putin is the adventurer and the aggressor.

    Gooddoggy -> CharlesBradlaugh

    Absolutely true, I am still sickened by Milnes atrocious view that Putin Imperialism is somehow acceptable whereas US Imperialism is not....clearly any sane and decent human being knows that both are unacceptable and need to be fought against with the tools of liberal social justice and liberal left democratic values.

    johhnybgood

    More propaganda. The constant attacks on Putin from the MSM, are an indicator of just how desperate the elite are to instigate some form of rebellion against him in Russia - hence the Nemtsov assassination. However, my reading of the situation is, that the general public across Europe are not buying the rhetoric. It seems that people are becoming far more discerning in their analysis of the propaganda headlines -such as "Russian forces invade Ukraine", with no supporting evidence. The PTB are losing the information war; the genie is out of the bottle, and cannot be put back. At last people's BS meters are now on full alert.

    Time for the MSM to start some independent reporting, especially where Russia is concerned.

    aprescoup

    Kasparov, you completely overestimate the influence that the West, even with its all-powerful dollar refinancing sanctions and quasi-monopolies on advanced technologies, can have on nudging Russians, both oligarchs and ordinary voters, into overthrowing Sistema Putin. If pathetically weak North Korea can continue to defy the West in the ways it does, then don't you think it more likely that a Russia isolated by further sanctions will become more like North Korea? Get real: Putin will not be pushed out of power by sanctions.

    It is time for the West to ignore the Russian opposition: not because the opposition is wrong to condemn Putin as a dictator, but because the Russian opposition completely underestimates the total power that Sistema Putin already has, and the absolute impotence of the West to undermine that total power. The likes of Kasparov, Nemtsov and Navalny are fools: they have underestimated what they are up against, and they are paying for that underestimation with their lives, alternatively with exile or house arrest and an accompanying fear of assassination.

    henrihenri

    Garry Kasparov was afraid of attending Nemtsov`s funeral under the pretext of being killed in Russia. As he explained he was nit ready to buy one-way ticket! Wow! Now every single leader of opposition says, I`m next! It is so ridiculous that even `The Ekho Moskvy`, their radio, laughed at this trend of theirs for a while. The matter, however, is none needs them. It`s just their coquetry. As to Mr. Kasparov none remembers him in his fatherland. Too many new, much younger and more handsome male stars!

    ID5868758

    Same propaganda, different mouthpiece. And don't you find it ironic, Kasparov complaining about "Putin's oligarchs", when he himself is in league with the all the oligarchs who escaped Russia with their stolen billions, and now fight from places like London and Tel Aviv for a return of Russia to the "good old days" of Boris Yeltsin, when the assets and resources of the Russian people were being sold off to the banks and the multinational corporations for pennies on the dollar.

    Junkets

    For a start, the assumption that Putin was behind Nemtsov's murder still remains to be proved. Jumping to conclusions based on political agendas is not the way a good investigator would go about things. After a bit of light from Seumas, didn't you just know that the Guardian would revert to type.

    Appeasement suggests Nazis. Are there concentration camps in Russia? Is Putin engaged in a process of mass-extermination? I remember when Saddam Hussein was compared to Hitler and Tony Blair was praised for his 'Churchillian' qualities. The hyperbole is all getting a bit too transparent.

    Keep on banging the war-drums, Graun, you might just get what you are looking for.

    FOHP46

    Mr Kasparov and Mr Saakashvili..wow! what a tandem, poor sods! Was it not Mr Saakashvili who started a war with Russia in 2008 when his army killed some Russian peace keepers? Is he not wanted for crimes in his country of origin Georgia? Nevertheless, he now lives in Boston, USA, the land of the free. Unbelievable.

    underbussen

    What a terrible article. Sorry but what the hell has happened to journalism these days? Why is "Putins Russia" responsible of this murder? This is like saying "Obamas America" is responsible for all the police shootings in the USA - clearly ridiculous. This article has Putin tried, drawn and quartered before the investigations even get really started. This is NOT journalism, this is propaganda. Shame on you Guardian.

    dropthemchammer Evgeny Petrov

    its quite easy to outsiders but the RUssian people have little access to free media

    Simon311 dropthemchammer

    You mean Rupert Murdoch? Lucky them

    Continent

    Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped. Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili – discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime.

    global danger ... how shocking. I haven't realized it. I has been thinking that ISIL and its terror acts, the violant instability in Afghanistan and North Africa (especially in Lybia), the wars in Iraq and Syria, the atrocities in Nigeria and Sudan, Ebola and the aftermath left on the economic and society of Liberia were the global dangers we would have to deal with.

    Rialbynot

    Kasparov: "Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped. Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili – discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime."

    Groupthink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    RobHardy richard1

    Has Britain ever been substantially different? We have Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind happily willing to sell their access to Chinese businesses. Media almost entirely controlled by corporate influences. Parliament and Civil Service increasingly manned by corporate lobbyists and loan staff. Our defence policy just a subdepartment of Pentagon policy making, GCHQ an outstation of the NSA.

    Yes, we are different, there is the possibility of democracy in Russia, but nothing but a empty sham illusion of democracy in this country.

    UnclePatsy -> dropthemchammer

    Let's first agree on a definition for "invade". Possible definitions may include:
    1. To enter by force in order to conquer
    2. To move into
    3. To infest or overrun.
    4. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate.

    I see civil internal strife within Novorussia and Kievan Ukraine aggravated by external forces, but not an outright invasion by NATO or Russia. Crimea was ceded to Ukraine SSR as a province along with Novorussia only in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev.

    uracan -> jezzam

    Don't you realize that what Putin is doing will consign Russia to poverty for a decade at least.

    This is just wishful thinking.

    Moreover Putin has destroyed any respect for Russia in the world

    If your world consist of US/UK and assorted lackeys.

    There is a bigger world out there than just the West and now that Russia has used the sanctions as an opportunity to do its own pivot to the cash , growing economies of the East, the future of Russia looks a whole lot better than the debt overburdened, decaying economies of the West.

    cherryredguitar

    The problem with the way that America has continually meddled in countries around the world for at least the last century is that every opposition leader in every country that America doesn't like starts looking like a neocon stooge. Because that's how the neocons work. It's their fault, not mine, that I think that way.

    Ilja NB

    Kasparov is a worthless peace of trash, he traveled all around the world on expense of Russian state, and then he suddenly decided he wanted to become a big shot politician, but instead of coming with some idea's that would benefit the country he only was bashing Mr. Putin while Mr. Putin was putting Russia on it's feet.

    Pedro Garcia

    That seems to be a law of life: you are good for one thing, you are bad for another. Kasparov is a despicable man, however a genius in chess. Just reading what he wrote, make me despise him. You don't like Putin, fine, but do you have to run into the US, too?

    Nemtsov as a Politician was null for many years, Putin didn't need to do anything to him, because he didn't represented any threat: his popularity was less than 1%. Nobody, even in Russia, knew who he was till he was shot dead. Politkovskaya was shot dead on Putin's birthday, Nemtsov shot dead aside the Kremlim, don't you see it? The killer is desperately trying to point out Putin. This are not bread crumbs this are the whole chain of bakeries pointing at Putin.

    This has happened before: Nisman in Argentina, to get rid of President Kirchner Party just before the elections, the killing of Hariri in Lebanon to blame Syria.

    Look who is profiting from it and you'll find who's to blame.

    Johhny Efex

    With the end of the USSR the 'free west' had a golden opportunity to disband NATO. This would have given breathing-space for other democratic forms to develop naturally in all sorts of places, including Russia. But instead the USA thought they would go for broke with Full Spectrum Dominance and other ridiculous utopian plans like PNAC to 'install' democracy around the world. Too paranoid and power-hungry to relax their suffocating grip one tiny bit. This is one of the unfortunate consequences.

    dropthemchammer Johhny Efex

    "Full Spectrum Dominance"? NATO is a defense organisation. why disband it when USSR died. there were and are other threats around the world.

    cherryredguitar dropthemchammer

    NATO is a defense organisation


    So why are Nato military generals continually making aggressive comments about Ukraine, which is not a member of Nato? Why is Nato defending non-member states? Because it is an expansionist organisation.

    The original poster is right - Nato should have been disbanded at the end of cold war.


    SASOVIET Johhny Efex

    The North American Terrorist Organisation (NATO) has a new role since fall of USSR:
    1. Terrorize Russians by annoying presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
    2. Gang up against third world countries to remove leaders that doesn't support US foreign policy like Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc...

    Old_Donkey

    Mr Kasparov's views can be compared to the open letter which descendants of the white emigration published in France.

    The white emigres declare their "Solidarity with Russia during the Ukrainian Crisis". They also object to the way in which "Russia has been accused of every kind of crime, without any proof, it is judged to be guilty a priori, whereas other countries benefit from a particularly disgusting leniency, in particular, where human rights are concerned."

    The emigres go on to protest against "the calumnies which day after day are heaped on modern-day Russia, its leaders and its President, who have been subjected to sanctions and vilified in defiance of all common sense."

    The descendants of the white emigration are prepared to give a KGB Colonel the benefit of the doubt. So why can't Garry Kasparov? At this point, no one can prove whether Boris Nemtsov died for the Russian opposition movement or not. The law is no respecter of persons and everyone should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, even the President of the Russian Federation.

    http://www.russkymost.net/spip.php?article70&lang=fr
    http://stanislavs.org/descendants-of-the-white-emigration-against-russophobia-in-western-msm/

    Standupwoman

    This is very sad. We must make allowances for the fact that Kasparov was brought up in the old USSR and is clearly unable to shake off that way of thinking, but he must have had a good mind once, and it's hard not to wonder if he mightn't be ill.

    His arguments are frighteningly bad. First he claims Putin is a murderer on the sole ground that a lot of US senators and a discredited war criminal (Saakashvili) agree with him - the kind of argument we would expect from the lowest CiF troll. It's absolutely true that there have been politically-motivated and gangland style murders in Russia, but I have no idea if Putin was responsible for any of them - and neither can Mr Kasparov. What we do know is that if the West had even the slightest shred of evidence against him they'd have plastered it over the media long ago.

    Then he starts rewriting history. After the initial rush of 'blame Putin' in 2008, even the EU was forced to admit that Georgia was not only the aggressor but also responsible for serious war crimes. A good piece in the Guardian gives links to much of this, including some excellent reporting by the BBC. Kasparov is basing his entire argument on a history of 'Russian aggression' which never happened.

    Then worst of all, he sweeps away any concept of fairness and justice. Putin has no motive for killing Nemtsov, he had every motive for not doing so, and there is not the slightest evidence against him - but to even mention these things (as the BBC does) is to be Putin's 'defence lawyer'. There is no need for the presumption of innocence, no need for evidence and a trial, and finally no need even for 'investigation'. Putin is guilty because Kasparov says so, and anyone who disagrees is a Kremlin troll.

    This is frightening on many levels, but not least for where it leads. The sub-headline echoes the hate-filled argument that the only thing that matters now is making Putin look like a loser - and it is precisely for that argument that people are dying. The conflict in Ukraine could stop tomorrow, but the US can't allow anything that suggests Putin has 'won'. Crimea could be resolved instantly by a second, properly monitored referendum, but (as the Lords Report pointed out) this would imply we were 'condoning' Putin. People must go on suffering and dying for as long as it takes - just to ensure the US doesn't lose face.

    That's chilling. In a world where people care about both Russians and Ukrainians, it isn't even sane. So yes, to hear someone like Kasparov come out with this dribbling hate-rant is very sad indeed.

    BunglyPete -> Standupwoman

    Very well written as usual sir/m'am :)

    I don't get why its such a big deal if Putin 'wins' either. If the case against him is so strong, even if pulling out the UAF leaves swathes of Ukraine in Russian control, you can sort it out through the UN later.

    The primary goal has to be the end of violence, not the removal of Putin.

    VladimirM

    It has never occured to me how aggressive [neo]liberals may be, how radical and prone to violence they are. Peacemongering efforts of hawks of peace, whose hatred is so blind that they are not fussy about the means to pursue their agenda, will lead to chaos rather than to prosperity of Russia. They are ready to attack BBC presenters if they are on their way, they are close to calling names when it comes to the EU leaders not living up to liberal expectations when dealing with Russia.


    "I will continue to do whatever I can to draw support to the cause of returning Russia to the path of democracy. "

    You are too agressive, tov. Kasparov. I don't like it. Please, make revolutions somewhere else. For example somewhere you live in, there are problems over there no doubt.

    If you really want to do something, start a charity to help children of Donbass instead of begging for weapons. That would be a decent move.

    SHappens

    Despite all attempts by Kasparov to revive Nemtsov through mouthpiece for the US/NATO, it will not change the fact that on a political point of view Nemtsov was a nobody. Sure he didnt deserve to die but we must ask whom this crime profits.

    It is obvious that Putin has been the target of this attack, together with all of Russia and, being the target, it is highly unlikely that he has been the author of this assassination.

    So now we have Kasparov going for his propaganda by calling Putin a dictator, and Russia a dictatorship, and advocating a full war to defeat the Russian army. Seems that Kasparov didn't learn anything during in glory years as a chess player because that is not a good strategy, this is a loosing strategy for him and the West, Europe in particular, and Ukraine with certainty.

    Nemtsov's death will fall in oblivion in a few months, that is, he will return where he came from. Nobody at least in the West knew this guy before the media rant. He was not even popular in Russia except for the 3%. Nothing to worry the Kremlin.

    ElmerFuddJr

    Astoundingly poor quality commentary in this thread. Y'all sound like American Republicans, or Bibi defenders...utterly incapable of dealing with complex subjects which, given that blood is being shed, require a modicum of understanding of world history these last 40 years (at least) and a bit of nuance here and there...

    Viktor Gofman ElmerFuddJr

    Serious commentary is for a serious article. Kasparov's article is a circus... So there is a circus in the thread as a result.

    PeregrineSlim

    Engagement with Russia has never been tried.

    Since the fall of the Soviet Union the policy has been to drive NATO tanks to the Russian border.

    American democracy is in a death spiral due to its militarism.

    And America is hindering the peaceful and democratic development of other countries due to its interference in their domestic politics.

    MacCosham

    It is telling how Putin, who has got where he is by competitive elections is described as a "dictator" while president Mikheil Saakashvili who:

    • -Got his presidency by overthrowing the previous, democratically elected, government.
    • -Ran a sham election where he got 95% of the vote (no joke)
    • -Killed his main political opponent ("gas poisoning")
    • -Got kicked out as soon as real elections were held

    is described as a former "president"

    [Mar 05, 2015] The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war by Seumas Milne

    Lebensraum was the ideology behind Drang Nach Ost. This EU expension is just more modern version of the same. This describes what EU/Nato is currently up to.
    Mar 05, 2015 | The Guardian

    yoron_ -> AlanC 5 Mar 2015 18:36

    "The U.S. and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, ready to launch with only a few minutes warning. High-alert status permits the launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of a perceived nuclear attack.

    Early Warning Systems (EWS), high-alert nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and nuclear command and control systems, all working together, provide the U.S. and Russia the capability to Launch-on-Warning.

    When Early Warning Systems warn of an impending nuclear attack, then decisions have to be made very quickly because the flight times of the missiles are very short. 30 minutes or less are required for a nuclear-armed land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) to travel between the U.S. and Russia and vice versa; 15 minutes or less for a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) to reach its target.

    Thus, once the attack is detected, evaluated and passed up the chain of command, the U.S. and Russian president would have at most 12 minutes to make the decision to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack.

    In the event an attack is believed to be real, the president must decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations. To launch a retaliatory nuclear strike based only upon electronic information derived from Early Warning Systems is to Launch-on-Warning. If the perceived warning turns out to be false but a retaliatory nuclear strike has already been launched, then accidental nuclear war will have occurred.

    The US and Russia are the only two nations believed to have the capacity to carry out Launch-on-Warning (they both have nuclear C3I systems connected to their nuclear weapon systems which enable them to carry out LoW). "

    Arthur_Pendragon 5 Mar 2015 18:46

    There isn't any invasion of Ukraine. There hasn't been an invasion. And there never will be an invasion.

    The Crimea incident wasn't an invasion or annexation at all. It was the will of the people - a popular uprising just like the one in Kiev. Self-determination is a right according to the UN. Well, that right was upheld on March 16th 2014.

    The problems in East Ukraine, also, are connected with a popular uprising of the peoples who live there. They have been attacked by their own government and many civilians have died because Kiev and its western backers did not have the balls to give those people what they initially and peacefully requested - a referendum.

    The people of Crimea have acted in the true spirit of democracy. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk have acted within the true spirit of democracy. The only party that didnt act within this spirit was Kiev. There was no vote to remove Yanakovych. There was no vote to join Europe.

    The west has turned black into white again.

    codeinesunrise -> Skalla 5 Mar 2015 18:41

    Your arrogance betrays your historical ignorance. These 'old powers' that you refer to largely have the Marshall Plan to thank for their economic prosperity - an injection of money that dwarfs current EU investment (and that's what it is, investment - many European companies benefit from these contracts) in Eastern Europe.

    It is important to also remember that a lot of the 'wealth' these countries created often came at the expense of its colonies, which it raped mercilessly. At least our 'poor little' Eastern European countries don't have this shameful legacy upon our conscience.

    You would also do well to remember that Britain itself was bailed out by the IMF in 1976 when it was little better than a failed state. Have a little humility, nothing is more embarrassing than misplaced, fatuous triumphalism.

    str8shtr -> Dzomba 5 Mar 2015 20:00

    1. And of course NATO couldn't say "Sorry, we already have an important agreement, we can not include countries from Warsaw pact"? And wasn't it told to Hungary and others that joining NATO is the shortest way to become a part of EU and west?

    I wonder about complains of Russian invasion after WWII. So u preferred to be under Nazi Germans and soviet solders paid their lives in vain? Or Russian troops had to go home leaving everything for US? Yes, you suffered from soviet framework and communist system, but it wasn't only Russian framework, it was soviet. You couldn't choose any other ideology except communist? So nobody in Ussr could. Everyone was equal in that)) In soviet Russia the regime was much more strict then in Warsaw pact countries. In east European countries national languages were taught, they had their own party (communist, of course), their own leaders (communist of course), constitution (communist) etc and the union invested a lot in recovering after the war and developing it economies. It doesn't look like a devastating invasion.

    2. Everything is on the contrary. The problem was that Russia did not give a damn about Ukraine after the fall of communism, coz it had it's own huge problems till 2001. Meanwhile Ukrainian nationalism was rising. Communists invented country "Ukraine" in the beginning of the 20th century and started nationalism there, but during USSR existed it was under control. Also US started to invest in changing Ukrainian loyalty to anti-Russian in early 90s, same as in east Europe ("red invasion", "you were their slaves", "they used you", "you suffered enough" and so on), it was a bit more difficult then in east Europe but time and nationalism of west Ukraine helped them much.

    3. Yanukovich was a weak president. He was trying to balance between EU/US, Russia and ukranian billioners interests trying to trade the best conditions for his country (for his family first of all). He played to much in that game.

    4. I didnt read the text of the Minsk agreement, but if the advisers have ranks and are a part of military forces don't they are a military help?..

    gnorblitz 5 Mar 2015 19:58

    This is the ultimate fantasy for these threads. The Right and the Left actually spilling blood over ideology instead of the typers here on Guardian Commentary spitting bile at one another. No matter what camp you're in or who you think is the good guy, war is always murder. And the people in this region are the ones suffering. The rest of you are just ghouls, looking on and stroking your political peckers.

    BloodOnTheWattle Strangest 5 Mar 2015 19:56

    I am not sure actually, you make it sound like President Obama is more than a match for President Putin. I mean, he has sanctioned the killing of 5000 people by killer drones during the last 4 years, created havoc in Ukraine, cheerlead and assisted NATO in what is today a cauldron of terrorism in Lybia, picked the wrong guys (yet again in Syria), institutionalized, torture and kidnapping and arm twisting of nations by not acting on the perpetrators of these criminal acts.

    So there you have it apparently Obama makes Putin look like a choir boy.


    irishmand sikaniska 5 Mar 2015 19:42

    The demonization of Russia risks paving way for a credible military defence capability in Europe.

    Which will be a waist of money and will only help to US MIC. Russia is not going to attack any of the european countries. It doesn't need it.

    geedeesee psygone 5 Mar 2015 19:50

    It speaks volumes when you keep dodging these opportunities to show the Russian Army invaded Ukraine. :-)

    irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:37

    Moscow's ambitions are an obvious threat to the whole world because the Kremlin's aggressive tactics may not be limited to just Ukraine. If the EU and NATO fail to stand up to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, later Russia will very possibly turn against the Baltic states and/or Moldova.

    Why are you not working hard to bring the Ukrainian economy back from ruins? You should be doing that instead of trying to create more hatred and fear in people. Or you only good at jumping?

    geedeesee LiamIrl 5 Mar 2015 19:47

    Ha ha - the protesters were nowhere that many. The Guardian said about 30,000. The more thuggish the protestors became, the smaller the crowd. The ultra-nationalist thugs appeared to number about 5000. But as I said, it's called a Coup when a government is overthrown violently by a small group. The democratic way is through elections, which were scheduled for later in the year.

    irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:45

    The Russian plan is clear. They will seize more of Ukraine and depose the government in Kiev if not checked in time. Only the swift and immediate action of the West to train and equip the Ukrainian army can stop Putin's strategy to deconstruct the trans-Atlantic architecture, to deconstruct the post-cold war order. Like a cancer, Putin and his elites, must be cut out.

    1. How are you going "check" Russia?
    2. Russia already had a chance to take over Ukraine and didn't do it. I don't see why it will decide to do it in the future.
    3. Train ukis so they could kill more people and more efficiently?You want more blood? More dead bodies?


    geedeesee -> Kamil Piwko 5 Mar 2015 19:16

    Of course, we watched many reports of Ukraine Army defecting and joining separatists. Kiev lost many military barracks, depots and arsenals. We know Ukraine Armed Forces totalled around 220,000 men (and maybe some women). The head of the Ukraine Navy went over. Elite forces went over. We read the reports; we saw the TV. Over and over again it happened. We know all this. Just type "Ukraine Army defects" into Google or your search engine. Also type in "Ukraine Army defectors" for more. This is why anti-democratic Kiev Regime of ultra-nationalists passed new draconian law to shoot soldiers who do not obey orders

    BUT - you have replied to a call for evidence showing and proving this huge Russian Army has invaded Ukraine, and yet you don't take the opportunity to reply with the evidence. Instead you tell us what is already known.

    Rossiya 5 Mar 2015 16:25

    What a wonderful and truthful article. Surprised it was published in so anti-Russia country/times/hysteria.

    Every evening the meteorologists remind us how the bad weather always comes from Siberia, it never comes from Scandinavia or North Pole for instance...

    Simply the Anglo-Saxons are born with 'hate Russia' genes unfortunately.
    Perhaps it is right time to press Reset button and return to the Stone Age (?!)

    yoron_ -> AXWE08 5 Mar 2015 17:15

    AXWE. There are no clean hands in this. It's about geopolitical power and who will exploit what. Putins Russia is definitely no cleaner than USA, both though are superpowers, both have nuclear missiles, some of them modernised recently, directed at Stockholm some minutes away, with one of those superpowers calling itself democratic, making its moves at another continent.

    No clean hands, and those that will lose to this stupidity are firstly Europeans, secondly Americans.

    Pavel Prokofiev -> Roguing 5 Mar 2015 17:13

    Ukraine was a colony of Russia?? What?? So, Russia was ruled by Georgian Stalin, by Ukraininan Khrushev and Brezhnev from Moldau, i.e. people from colonies?

    We will discuss you question once a person of indian origin will become a king of the UK.

    ID1439675 -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 17:12

    But yeah, the few instructors of another country is a major violation.

    Although it's hard to disagree with much of what you have to say, you are incorrect on this point. The presence of British and US instructors does not violate the Minsk2 package of measures for two reasons. First, by virtue of the Budapest memorandum the US and the UK are both guarantors of Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty. That means, amongst other things, they are obliged to provide whatever support is deemed necessary to restore Ukrainian territorial integrity when it is adjudged to have been breached. Although not parties to the Minsk2 agreement it could be argued that by sending instructors the US and British are violating the UNSC resolutuon which amongst other things urged all parties to observe the Minsk2 package. However, a UNSC resolution cannot override an existing treaty obligation or agreement unless the resolution specifically allows for that. Secondly, were this matter taken before a court for adjudication the most likely judgement would be that the Minsk2 reference to the removal of foreign troops relates primarily to the disputed area and to Ukraine's demand during the agreement's formulation that Russian troops leave Ukrainian territory. It was never intended to refer to instructors from other countries invited in by the Ukrainian government to train its troops in areas well away from the line of contact and the disputed area.

    Of course all this a moot point since neither the Russian Federation nor its proxies have fulfilled their obligations since the agreement was signed. Minsk2 is a convenient fiction for all but those who are still being killed, maimed and made homeless by the fighting. Those who believe otherwise should consult the OSCE sitreps and the Ukrainian casualty announcements (which are anyway widely believe to be understating the true figure). The hardcore fighting will resume when the Russian proxy army has reorganised its forces in preparation for the next part of its offensive - the capture of Mariupol, further territorial gains in the Donbas region and the capture of Kharkiv.

    Evgeny Skorobogatko -> Pavel Prokofiev 5 Mar 2015 17:12

    1) You changed topic from neo-nazis to something else. You lost.
    To your other topic of anti-Russia rhetoric - what kind of rhetoric would you expect vis-a-vis an invading nation? Pro-invasion? The rest is unclear and unsubstantiated narrative that I can hardly understand. Can you try to first at least make a statement before you try to prove it?
    2) Agreed, and Putin is one of those enemies, he's a dictator.
    3) If only were you able to quote an article from the Minsk-2 agreement that allowed killing the army inside the self-defined encirclement past the start date.
    4) both statements flat out lies. Prove them. Some of the many politicians participating in Maidan (incl. Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk) got a lot of popular vote in the coming general elections. Also, no one is forcing Ukraine into NATO (even if Ukraine wholeheartedly wanted that, it's like a ~10-year journey)
    4') Another lie, no one is marching into any cities which haven't been invaded by the Russian army, special forces and paramilitary fighters.
    5) See 4'. Didn't get the rest of the post re. population growth, not relevant to Russian invasion
    6) Thanks for sharing your dreams.

    wheresmewashboard -> Smileyosborne12 5 Mar 2015 17:05

    Russians generally have such confidence in Putin that they believe that however difficult the problems may be that their president will find a way to overcome them.

    I don't doubt that this is true, but the point that I was making is that if the Russian economy ends up suffering terribly due to the sanctions, both as they are now and how they may increase, then it is inconceivable that over time the Russian people wouldn't start to think that there are other options.

    The admiration for Putin is mostly as a result of the fact that he brought stability to Russia. The force of his personality is not to be taken for granted I admit, but it is relatively superficial compared to the stability he and Medvedev have brought. If, however, this stability is lost, and Russia enters a protracted period of economic slump, or potentially worse, then his approval ratings, over time will surely begin to collapse. This has happened in every example of economic calamity within a democracy in history. Admittedly, it may take longer in Russia than in most Western countries, but to think that the Russian people will continue to support Putin regardless of the depths of economic hardship and for how long it goes on for is naive, to say the least. Russian people may well be stoical, but they are not masochists.

    The potential problem from Putin's point of view, is that his actions in Ukraine are isolating him and therefore his country. The SEC rules the world of financial regulation, like it or not. No foreign banks / financial institutions will deal with Russian banks or businesses whilst they remain persona non grata with the SEC. Russia's reserves will see them right for a while longer but not forever. The new structure of the world financial system places a lot of power in the hands of American regulators, and this will cause all manner of problems for those who are blacklisted. Russia cannot hope to win in an economic battle with America.

    Ukraine is a regional dispute in America's eyes. They are probably not likely to get involved in a proxy war with Russia. The damage they can do to Putin economically is enough.

    Pavel Prokofiev -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 16:48

    To 1) What for Svoboda is needed, if Yatzenyk and Poroshenko have taken its role with "Heil Ukraine!" and full anti-Russian rhetoric. Who would vote for Tyagnibok if they see that he is not tolerated by the Europe and U? If Europe and US would make clear that they do not support violence of nazi on Maidan - there would be no nazi coup. If Europe and US would not support killings of civilians there would be civil war. Even Venediktov warned Ukrainians that "tituschkas" and "policemen" are also citizens and have rights and own views, but very well educated journalists ignored and ignore this. One can got an impression that such journalists represent the common view, but the truth is that they are in a minority. The truth is that the durty work including fighting with Kalashnikovs is done by other type of people. It is possible to ignore the reality for some time, but one day there will be a hard confrontation with it.

    2) Murder of Nemtsov benefits only enemies of Russia.

    3) Debaltsevo is just one of the cases of confrontation with reality. Poroshenko believed that there was no encirclement - reality proved to be different.

    4) NATO expansion is ok, but why to use nationalistic minority (who could not get even 5% of votes) to make a coup and force a country into NATO?

    4') Poroshenko promised that there would be no civil war and any fighting would end within hour after his election - same lies as all stories and policy itself in the current Ukraine. Uncontrolled bataillons are marching into your city - your action? This what people in Eastern Ukraine were doing. Trying to protect themselves from uncontrolled Nazi battalions.

    5) Military solution?? Russia will pay high price? But it is the population in Eastern Ukraine, who disagree with Kyiw policy - they are the driving force. If do not want that some Nazi battalions are marching on their streets, you want to force them at any price? The question is, what price will then pay the Ukrainian people on both sides of the conflict, to make Russia to pay high price? This is the main question. The result will be the following: by birthrates Ukraine with 40 million people is now on the same level as Somalia with population of 10 million. During Soviet times each year almost one million people were born in Ukraine, now it is about 400 thousand. 60 years ago population of Ukraine was equal to population of Nigeria or Pakistan (was 1 to 1). Today in Nigeria or Parkistan each year are born 10 to 20 times more children. In Nigeria alone are born more children than in entire EU+Ukraine. At the end of the day we have now Ukraine and Russian and Europe with 30% population of pensioners, and in other countries we see for 40 years now non-stop demographic revolution. Western values against family values? Do you see, who will be the winner? Certainly not Russians, Ukrainians or Europeans.

    6) Neutrality? No Neutrality but united and mutualy beneficial block from Roca to Dezhnev.

    MysticMegsy -> Tonterias 5 Mar 2015 16:33

    US bases are a relic of the cold war - they are of absolutely no strategic importance now - how could they be without tanks?

    Both the US and Russia will have a large number of SLBMs parked off the coast of the other's country, so whining about bases and NATO encroachment in Europe is irrelevant. NATO and Russia could wipe out each other's cities regardless of how many bases they have, no matter how close to the other's border.
    This argument that Putin 'feels threatened' by Ukraine joining the EU is a total smokescreen to justify his own expansionist agenda (to secure power at home), when the real danger lurks under the Barents Sea regardless.

    nnedjo -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:28

    Ukraine didn't want to be a part of Putin's Eurasian Union which triggered Russian invasion Russian Eurasian Union is a non starter without Ukraine, and Putin knows it.

    Read what former Ukrainian prime minister says on this subject:

    Top EU officials, rather than Russia, threatened Ukraine with a coup d'état if Kiev refused to sign an association agreement in 2013, Nikolay Azarov, Ukraine's former prime minister, said.

    "I've never heard neither Putin nor Medvedev saying that if you sign an agreement with the EU, you'll have a different government. But I've heard [EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy, Stefan] Fule, repeatedly saying that if you don't sign then the other government will sign it," Azarov said at the presentation of his book 'Ukraine at a crossroads. Prime Minister's notes' in Moscow.

    EugeneGur 5 Mar 2015 16:27

    The great writer Anton Chekhov wrote a short story "A letter to a learned neighbor ". The story has a personage whose favorite argument was: "It cannot be because it can never be". A lot of people commenting here strongly remind me of that personage. No amount of evidence or logic can possibly convince them of anything they prefer not to see.
    Example:
    Crimea referendum was under the gunpoint. You can point them to multiple perfectly anti-Russian sources showing that Crimeans voted not only willingly but happily - not, it was annexation, referendum illegal (because we say so), Crimea is occupied, and so on.

    One question. If Crimea is occupied, and the population was forced to vote to join Russia, how come the West sanctions Crimea? Just recently the US said Crimea will be under sanctions until it returns to Ukraine. Does it make any sense to punish occupied people for something they had no control over?

    I don't think even the US is that stupid. I think they know perfectly well that Crimea is heavily pro-Russian; they knew it before the referendum, after the referendum, and they know it now. They are punishing Crimeans precisely for that: for their desire to reunite with Russia, a.k.a. self-determination. A round of applause for our "democratic leader of the free world", please.


    OldStickie Wolfsz 5 Mar 2015 16:16

    Lebensraum was a component of Drang Nach Ost which describes what Nato is currently up to.

    BorninUkraine -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:14

    Because it's not Russians, it's the people of Donbass fighting for their freedom.

    Before you ask, I grew up in Lugansk, I have lots of friends and relatives in Donbass. Every one of them knows that their cities are shelled and women and children are routinely killed by Kiev Nazis.

    BunglyPete

    A letter published from a NATO representative in the Guardian today disputes this articles assertions about NATO expansion

    In an interview published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 15 October 2014, former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev said: "The topic of 'Nato expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years." As the man to whom the promise is said to have been given, his words carry weight.

    This conviently misses out the rest of the interview

    Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and Genscher talked about it.

    "Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. ...

    "The decision for the US and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed."

    http://m.rbth.co.uk/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

    While there was no written agreement the implication was that the US wouldnt take advantage,

    Matlock recalled that Baker began his argument saying something like, "Assuming there is no expansion of NATO jurisdiction to the East, not one inch, what would you prefer, a Germany embedded in NATO, or one that can go independently in any direction it chooses." [emphasis added]

    The implication was that Germany might just opt to acquire nuclear weapons, were it not anchored in NATO. Gorbachev answered that he took Baker's argument seriously, and wasted little time in agreeing to the deal.

    Ambassador Matlock, one of the most widely respected experts on Russia, told me "the language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no 'taking advantage' by the U.S."

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/15/how-nato-jabs-russia-on-ukraine/

    Barry Klinger

    I agree that there's been a lot of knee-jerk propaganda against Russia, and that NATO should not have expanded into the former USSR, and that arming Ukraine is probably a bad idea. But...

    Last spring President Putin said that the "green men" in unmarked green uniforms were not Russian soldiers. Then a few weeks later he admitted that they were. Now he says Russia is not helping Ukraine... except for some volunteers going on their own initiative. Press reports of Russian hardware rolling into Ukraine, circumstantial evidence of war-fighting capability surprising for a revolt that just started months ago... Balance of forces have consistently looked to be in rebels favor, especially if they have Russia literally at their back. So who is more likely to be breaking the cease-fire, the ones who stand to gain or the ones who stand to lose?

    To me, all this points to Russian aggression to shrink the independence of neighboring countries, independence that the US foolishly encouraged to be too aggressive. It looks like Russia started and continues to stoke the war in Eastern Ukraine, which is not a minor offense compared to any complicity US had in unrest in Kiev last year.

    PlatonKuzin -> Barry Klinger

    I guess that the most appropriate answer to all the questions you have raised in your post are the words said more than 130 years ago by genious German politician Otto von Bismarck. They refer to the economic relations with Russia but the general principles stated there are universal and absolutely every word in it is of great significance. Please, read carefully what he said:

    Do not expect that once taken advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come – they will not rely on the Jesuit agreement you signed, that supposedly justify your actions. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russians you should use fair play or no play.

    Erik Lyng

    Thank you. Is about time someone actually talked about this.

    BorninUkraine -> Erik Lyng

    Yes, it's the first sensible and balanced comment from the Guardian staff in a long time. It shows that not everyone in the media is blind (or paid enough to play blind). Thank you, Seumas Milne!

    PlatonKuzin

    I hope that shifting to a more balanced coverage of developments in Ukraine and Russia is caused both by the author's commitment to truth and change of the editorial policy in favor of truth.

    PlatonKuzin

    This is the first article written by a Western author in which he bona fide tries to provide the audience with a balanced and unbiased view on what happens in Ukraine, Russia and relations between Russia and the West. Bravo, Mr. Milne. For the first time ever I personally agree with major author's conclusions and ideas. A rare case for me with respect to the Guardian publications.

    EugeneGur

    Russia had been compliant with the West for far too long. And look where it got it? The fault line was, of course, the bombing of Yugoslavia. That was the first time Yeltsin opened his mouth and objected to anything the West did. Overnight he was transformed in the Western press from the glorious Russian leader into incompetent drunkard, which he undoubtedly was. Russians have been weary of NATO ever since.

    That NATO operation is justified by many that it stopped genocide. Pardon me, but NATO killed people in Belgrade that weren't engaged in any genocide. It's like targeting civilians in a war or killing hostages. Both could be quite effective in a military or terrorist operation. But we wouldn't condone them, would we?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't recall a single defensive operation by NATO, although plenty of offensive ones. Beauty is as beauty does, isn't it?

    Demi Boone

    Putin is merely reacting to NATO expansionism that began with the Administration of Bill Clinton in 1993. He broke the promise of George Bush (I) who said he would not encroach on the boarders of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union by bringing Poland into NATO and arming them with missiles.

    Then Clinton began talking about bringing in other countries as well as Ukraine. This was all done seeking little or no advice from experienced High ranking US Foreign Policy advisers and after it was done he received much criticism for doing it because it infuriated and alienated Russia's Western oriented politicians.

    if NATO pushes into Ukraine then Putin will push back

    this is what has been occurring (simmering) since the time of Clinton what the US is trying to tell the world is

    if Putin pushes into Ukraine then NATO will push back

    they are two completely different arguments......research the topic historically.

    irishmand -> richard1

    He's alienated Ukraine, EU and USA and strengthened NATO, meanwhile unleashing strong nationalist forces in Russia. He cannot win in Ukraine and if he's seen to loose Ukraine, in the Russian mind, (inevitable) these forces are going to "come for him" and his billions.

    US/EU alienated Russia by sponsoring a nazi driven coup in Kiev and unleashing a wild russophobic propaganda campaign.

    bokhar

    Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

    SEUMUS WAKE UP! If you care about Russia and its future you should recognize that Putin is bad for Russia - he has done nothing but suppress and kill political opposition, independent media, all the while maintaining an ever tightening noose around the necks of ordinary Russian citizens.

    EugeneGur -> bokhar

    Somehow, ordinary Russia citizens disagree with this appraisal - but, of course, you know better, being an enlightened European as opposed to them zombies. Do you people even read what you've written before you post or does it come straight from the heart?

    irishmand -> bokhar

    Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

    How much? Give us numbers and maybe we will believe you. Or maybe we won't. Look how many people US/EU killed, are they sorry?

    NaMorris

    But we want war. It's our not so secret desire. We want to live, not watch, our favorite action and war movies. In war everyone can be a hero. In war there are only good and evil, nothing in between, no middle men. War is blissful simplicity. This is why we pave the way for war.

    Eaglesson

    Victoria Nuland just few days ago smiling shaking hands with Andriy Parubiy the same founder of Ukrainian Social National Party and also the founder of Joseph Goebbels Institute. The white supremacist was invited in US and he came back with promises that Pentagon will supply them with weapons very soon (as he declared)
    Some people have no shame!!

    SirHenryRawlins -> Eaglesson

    Nuland is a neoconservative. Birds of a feather Parubiy and Nuland.

    Danish5666 -> Hucker

    "have a right as independent countries to choose who they see as their friends"

    Russia is rank dilettantes when compared to the US. Covert United States foreign regime
    change actions:

    1949 Syrian coup d'état
    1953 Iranian coup d'état
    1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
    1959 Tibetan uprising
    1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
    1963 South Vietnamese coup
    1964 Brazilian coup d'état
    1973 Chilean coup d'état
    1976 Argentine coup d'état
    1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
    1980 Turkish coup d'état
    1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

    Smileyosborne12

    Come ON the red arrows! I am an unashamed supporter of Vladimir Putin.

    When one realises the severe problems,financial,military,politically,ecumenically and territorially the man faced when he took over I have a lot of time for him.Firstly he was preceded by a succession of Premiers who generally in succession just served to weaken the country.

    Lenin,Stalin,Khruschev,Pavlov, Kosygin and the drunken megalomaniac Yeltsin, left Russia as weak as at any time in its modern history. Putin gave up the Muslim states which had weakened Russia since the days of Stalin and finally came to an understanding with Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya the most militant of them all. In spite of the best attempts of the UN,Nato, President Obama,Angela Merkel,David Cameron and Francois Hollande to ruffle and destabilise him he has almost twice the approval rating of any of them and survived a litany of attempts to tie him to murders of his "opponents" without any concrete evidence brought against him. Pretty good record I would suggest.

    willpodmore

    Matthew Parris wrote in The Times ('It's time we washed our hands of Ukraine', 28 February, p. 21) "Ukraine? With an inward groan, I write again what I wrote about Saddam's Iraq, about Gaddafi's Libya and about Assad's Syria. Intervention almost always makes things worse."

    adoeli -> no_ref

    Gas disputes are resolved in an international court of arbitration. Head of the Energy Commission of the European Union recognized the guilt of Ukraine in non-payment of supplies. Kiev just doesn't it, till won't come the Z-day. Russia itself depends on the supply of gas through Ukraine. The pipe goes through Ukraine to Europe. Moscow concerns about the reputation of the honest supplier. Moscow's role as an unscrupulous suppliers is profitable for US. Ukraine, that had become a puppet of the United States, is capable for any provocation. Moscow was glad to be rid of such an intermediary that it did in fact, has planned a new gas pipeline project with Turkey. Now are you happy? Neither Ukraine nor Bulgaria nor the other will depend on Russian gas supplies. What are the problems?

    SHappens -> jezzam

    Russia did not make a fuss on all those Eastern countries joining NATO even if, of course, it might not pleased them. The red line was passed with Ukraine. Crimea in particular.

    In the past deals were made, promises were made, tacit agreements if you will and everybody was coping. But when the US decided to come and play in Russia's backyard with the intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia, well Putin said stop. Now the US dont want to listen thus the assault on everything Russian through the conciliatory mass media.

    If you think about it all objectively you can only agree that without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already.

    ToddPalant -> Andrew Baldwin

    Fight for reform? With the dissolution of the USSR Yeltsin had a tabula rasa. They could start from the beginning by founding a truly democratic Russia. Unfortunately Mr. Nemtsov presided, along with other western proteges, over the looting of the Russian public wealth, virtually delivering it in the hands of the "chosen" few. Nemtsov although pro western, was no reformer. In his later years he was, to put it simplistically, a repeater of Mrs. Nuland's and her husband's aggressive narrative (the "f**k soft politics, bring in the troops" kinna thingy )

    jezzam -> SHappens

    No. I still don't get it. If Russia did not make a fuss about all the other countries joining NATO, why make a fuss about Ukraine?

    What does your statement that the US "intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia," mean? In what way were the US intending to rob Ukraine? In what way would this have threatened Russia?

    "without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already". I find it hard to agree with this statement as it is again difficult to understand. Do you mean that by now Putin would have imposed his will?

    SHappens -> jezzam

    I'll try to make it short, you know I can be prolific.

    Crimea base lease, Fuck the EU coup using Maiden revolt, installation of a government chosen by her in Kiev.

    Rob resources, gas Biden, cereals Monsanto, install NATO, control Russia and why not annihilate it + cheap human labour flooding in Germany and the EU for a more low leverage of EU wages.

    By now there would have been the regular vote as planned in May 2014.

    gnorblitz

    This is Kiev and Moscow using centuries old blood feuds and nationalist fervor in a struggle over territory and its concomitant resources, infrastructure, tax revenue and political power. Washington is fueling it in order to widen its sphere of influence in the region, sell arms, entrench political back home and further contain Russia politically and economically. All three governments have the blood of the people in the region on their hands.

    gnorblitz -> gnorblitz

    That should read entrenching political support back home. Since the Second World War, standing up to Russia is guaranteed political currency in the U.S.

    ToddPalant -> gnorblitz

    If it were simply an isolated power play on the part of the US, although atrocious, it would not be as threatening as it is now. It seems like a culmination of a plan hatched in the late 40's.

    It also looks like an act of desperation as the US having lost its economic "power house" status relies solely on its still impressive war machine, certainly a policy that has an expiry date.

    When the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the US will have reached the point of no return. All three have blood on their hands, true. But the instigator, the accessory before the fact, is draped in stars and stripes

    EugeneGur

    A reasonable article in the Guardian? Sounds like an oxymoron. Someone must be sick on the editorial board to allow this.

    The alternative is a negotiated settlement which guarantees Ukraine's neutrality, pluralism and regional autonomy. It may well be too late for that.

    This was an alternative more than a year ago but it is no longer on the table. Under no circumstances Donbass will be a part of the present day Ukraine no matter how many sanctions are applied to Russia. Besides, the US wants a conflict with Russia, which means Kiev will fight on. What the US will do when Kiev gets its ass kicked for the third time, which will undoubtedly happen, I don't know. But everything they've done so far is bringing us all closer to the real possibility of a war.

    jezzam -> EugeneGur

    If what you say is true, it is obvious what will happen. E. Ukraine will effectively become part of Russia. Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically and left to stew in their own juice. Is it worth it just to grab a useless piece of devastated territory?

    EugeneGur -> jezzam

    What I always admire is the "humanitarian" zeal of out western friends. They lecture us relentlessly on human right, European values, etc, but when it come to opposing Russia, all humanitarian concerns disappear like the smoke they really are.

    This "useless piece of devastated territory" is populated by 8 millions of human beings, and it wasn't devastated by itself but by our Ukrainian brothers that claimed for some mysterious reason that land for itself. Russia didn't grab anything - Russia is helping these people to survive. Got something against it?

    StanislavCh -> jezzam

    Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically

    It's the most amazing part of Western narrative. Isolated from whom ? The whole world wants to cooperate with Russia , does it and will continue. If US and EU do not - fine, nobody cares , just piss off, but it's so ridiculous to call it isolation!

    bananasandsocks

    There was no democratic outcome ebcause there was no democratic vote.

    There was a vote. And objective evidence from polling indicates that Crimeans overwhelmingly consider it free and fair. So there is democratic confirmation of its validity.

    No option to vote for the status quo.

    According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    No independent oversight of vote counting.

    According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    No campaigning allowed for the Ukrainian side.

    According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    Voters intimidated by masked armed thugs.

    Nonsense. But according to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    Roguing -> bananasandsocks

    Do non-Russian populations currently living in Russia have the right to transfer sovereignty of their territory from Moscow to another state?

    [Mar 05, 2015] Nuland ensconced in neocon camp who believes in noble lie

    From comments: "Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick, Bennett, as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their crimes against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the Federal Reserve, IMF, and ECB.
    Mar 05, 2015 | rt.com

    Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics, seeking to stir the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more arms sales, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.

    RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is generally improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?

    Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined to see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the conflict in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been bombarding Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and their own people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon camp. The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie… They lied us into the war in Iraq; they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.

    RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable proof. Do you think she can she be challenged on these topics?

    DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except for Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are true but we have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the war. This is much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global nuclear war. So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not provided any. We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this week hundreds of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it only an escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?

    RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?

    DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders of the Joseph Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came back to Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons - whatever that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide lethal weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.

    RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another round of sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?

    DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland said that the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of activity. I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was one bit of unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there.

    Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) for 12 years.

    Frank Wolstencroft

    Victoria Nuland was appointed as an assistant US Secretary of State by none other than Killary Klinton.

    Armand Geddon

    Tony Blair

    May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us. Texas , california & new mexico.more...

    There no need. Obama and our corrupt Congress have already opened the border for the illegals to just walk right in and take it!

    "Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick, Bennett, as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their crimes against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the Federal Reserve, IMF, and ECB.

    ifigeniaa

    She is responsible for the thousands of death in eastern Ukraine.

    Tony Blair

    May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us.Texas , california & new mexico. These jews in the white house like victoria newlandberg, john kerrberg & the rest of them look like ugly vultures sitting on the branches of a dead tree.

    Brigitte Meier

    Nulands lies are only a very complicated way of saying that the US policy in Ukraine failed. It was based on the assumption that the Ukraine army would make short shrift with the rebels. When that didn't work there really wasn't any plan B. That all what Nuland says is lies is already confirmed with the false photos Kiev sent to the US Congress of Russian tanks - which turned out to have been photographed in Georgia. "Who cares, its the only picture we've got of them Russian tanks". Good enough to admit under cover that Kiev lost the war and with it the US lost its policy goal. Russia isn't faltering despite the sanctions. Putin has a 86% positive rating. And Kiev is bankrupt and really can't move anymore. Time for the US to think of getting Ukraine's riches and split until more neo-Nazis can be trained in Poland to destabilize both the EU and Ukraine which hopefully will then be enough to throw Russia into turmoil too.

    Nuland was funny: the destruction caused by the rebels in Donbas - not the destruction caused by the Ukraine army who attacked Donbas! The rebels destroyed the airport - but the Ukraine army did most of the destruction to make the airport unusable for the rebels. Now they have to go fight for Mariupol - I'm sure the Ukraine army wants to destroy the port there too so as not to leave it for use by the rebels. And Nuland can then describe it all again in inversions. What she was really saying is that the Ukraine army caused abhorrent devastation, specifically of residential areas - in the winter - to prevent the population of Donbas from staying in the Donbas. Clearly, an action of ethnic cleansing as the Israelis do in Palestine. it is also clear that the Congress understood that and is dismayed. It destroys the image of the US as the great bringer of democracy and freedom - especially with the bankruptcy, the cut in payments on all levels and hyperinflation of 272%. Genuine freedom to starve. And Kerry still wants to believe that the problem is just that the US isn't spending enough on PR! Does he really think that the Russians will look at US PR rather than at the reality in Donbas and Kiev? Why would any Russian still believe in the positive intentions and influence of the US? At best, people will make fun of the US ingenuity to invent PR.

    [Mar 02, 2015] Whodunnit?

    From comments "Live by the sword, die by the sword. Nemtsov oversaw Russia's transition to a lawless, wild west where tens of millions suffered and died from crime, drugs, depression and privation - and now he met the same fate he helped condemn so many to during the 1990s. The same fate he was actively working to condemn tens of millions more to."
    Mar 02, 2015 | Moon of Alabama

    So someone killed Boris Nemtsov while the 56 year old man walked with his 22 year old Ukrainian "model" on a bridge in Moscow. There is some CCTV coverage of the crime scene.

    As vice-premier under Boris Yeltsin Nemtsov was at least partially responsible for the mafiazation of the Russian economy. Everyone but some oligarchs and the "western" neoliberals was happy when he and the Yeltsin gang had to leave.

    After he was kicked out and until yesterday Nemtsov was a very minor opposition politician polling at some 1%. The communists, the real opposition party in Russia, poll at about 20%. No one in the government had reason to care about or fear Nemtsov.

    The former Soviet president Gorbachov points to those who will gain from Nemtsov's death:

    Asked if he thought anti-Russian forces abroad might exploit the crime in pursuit of their own ends, he argued this would definitely happen.

    "Of course, certain forces will try to take advantage of this crime for their own ends - all of them are thinking how to get rid of Putin, aren't they? But I don't think, after all, that the West will go as far as that, that it will use that crime to attain its own purposes. However, that was unquestionably the goal of the criminals who murdered Boris," he said.

    "Crimes of this kind are taken on by executors who are hard to find. All efforts must be made to find the criminals," the ex-president said.

    Gorbachov still uses rose colored glasses when locking at the "west". The "west" would never use a crime to attain its purpose? That is laughable naive.

    And what about all those legitimate and popular opposition politicians currently getting suicided in Ukraine?

    So whodunnit?

    Someone with relations to the "model"? Someone hurt in the gangster "privatizations" executed under Nemtsov's rule? Some Ukrainian oligarch interested in creating more schism between the "west" and Russia? Some "western" government plotting the destabilization of Russia?

    Your guess is as good as mine.

    Posted by b on March 1, 2015 at 08:41 AM | Permalink

    ALAN | Mar 1, 2015 9:25:21 AM | 3

    LaRouche Says the Murder of Russian Opposition Leader Nemtsov "Smells Like Nuland"
    https://larouchepac.com/20150301/larouche-says-murder-russian-opposition-leader-nemtsov-smells-nuland

    somebody | Mar 1, 2015 9:33:09 AM | 5

    Nemtsov's complicated Romantic life

    Nemtsov considered asking for political asylum in 2012

    Putin in 2012 - Opposition is looking to turn someone into "involuntary martyr"
    coming across in body language across as absolute villain.

    x | Mar 1, 2015 9:33:25 AM | 6

    Who pulled the trigger, or who paid to have it pulled?

    My bet, it was a little pay back to Putin (by proxy) from Kiev ... which means a combo of underworld murk and politically convenient 'fact' on the ground to distract msm from the US arms sales thru the ME -- which means Soros, McCain, and the DC 'cookie' Gang et al.

    Who pulled the trigger? One the best money can buy obviously -- Mossad would be in the top list of the usual suspects.

    He was obviously a man who liked to access all areas... photo

    Harry | Mar 1, 2015 9:54:27 AM | 10

    I dont believe in coincidences, hence timing points to a political hit. I'm quite sure Russia will eventually find who did it, but it will be just a man-for-hire, real masterminds will remain unknown, we just can make an educated guess - look who benefits the most. As well as history of those potential culprits.

    Scott | Mar 1, 2015 10:24:30 AM | 11

    OK here's my take on it before I read the latest updates. Nemtsovs murder was either because of a personal grudge or it was a sponsored false flag. You can combine the two as well. What bothers me is again, the timing and location. My gut tells me that tends to exclude the strictly personal. Would you whack a guy 200 yds. from the White House? I wouldn't. So I look at the symbolism and perhaps red herrings.

    I see a stolen car with Ingush plates. A subtle warning of trouble in the Caucus? I see the creation of a martyr and shrine in Red Square. Message? Look what we can do on your doorstep Putin.

    Why Nemtsov? Minor player who has value as a martyr but not as a "leader". He was a spent force trying to remain relevant. This clears the way for Navalny to step up. Whether it was a professional hit? A pro can make it appear any way he wishes.

    So before I start to ramble...I think timing, location, messages sent, and who benefits. Who did it? It could be the result of a personal grudge instigated by shadowy figures who promise protection to the shooter, who could be anywhere including a landfill by now. This was a bit too convenient and bold to be strictly personal. So...for what it's worth...that's my thinking as of right now.

    AMomyMous | Mar 1, 2015 10:33:07 AM | 12

    As Raisa Gorbachev allegedly said: Youth is a mistake that is soon over.

    But not soon enough for Mikhail, perhaps, because his vision still appears rosy and not clouded by reality or cataract.

    Or maybe he is just speaking in diplomat-ese for public consumption- language wasted on a neanderthal opponent that uses all levers on the force gauge.

    Gorbachev was urged by China's wiser leaders not to glasnost before perestroika.
    The circumstances of USSR at that time were critical then. But had Gorbachev not succumbed to naivete and the Western forked tongue, the night would not have been as long and desperate for post-Soviet Russia.

    The collapse of Red Moscow turned Washington's cross-hairs on the Balkans and West Asia, ie, Iraq - a narrow time frame that gave China to complete Stage A of its spectacular rise.

    The next level is a bit harder to reach, with the West whipping up the fog of war, from Ukraine to the Asian seas.

    Putin and Xi Jinping are now helmsmen on the same boat.

    denk | Mar 1, 2015 10:34:45 AM | 14

    here's the long ans....

    *Boris Nemtsov's last appeal
    Boris Nemtsov, Putin's vocal critic and opposition leader, was murdered late Feb. 27 in Moscow in what is said to be a contract hit by his Kremlin adversary.

    Here is Boris Nemtsov's last story he wrote in Facebook:

    "Putin annexed Crimea while giving away Siberia to Chinese* [1]

    +nemtsov is a fierce critics of putin,
    +he parrots the zwo meme of *yellow peril gonna overrun russia*,
    a typical divide n conquer ploy in fukus playbook.
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia

    this smells like another zwo smear job on putin, right after the mh17 ff.
    by martyrising nemtsov, it boost the image of putin the *ruthless dictator who silence his critics* in the western sheeples mindset , [see the moron at (2)]

    it also serves to subvert putin's supporters base, many of whom might be led to believe that *putin the traitor who give siberia to the chinese* silence nemtsov for *blowing the whistle*

    here's the no brainer ans....
    zwo rule 1
    *who else but the UsualSuspects ?*


    [1]
    http://zik.ua/en/news/2015/02/28/boris_nemtsovs_last_appeal_568549

    Noirette | Mar 1, 2015 10:39:06 AM | 15

    He is now a person who becomes famous after death. I had only heard of him vaguely a few times and paid no attention. OK, as a Kreminologist I suck, yes.

    He was not an important person, or not in any public way in years past, imagining that murdering him would achieve any political objectives, either national within Russia or world-wide, is completely loony, be it from Putin's side, the liberal-oppo-Russian side, or the West, including Israel.

    Focussing on him shows only that the media has sway and shunts the debate onto trivia, pointed to individuals, away from finance and geo-politics.

    In a previous post, I argued that the first causes of these street shooting deaths should be top of the line: from being a thief, a traitor to one's group, in deep financial trouble, to stealing a woman, even mistaken identity, etc.

    ben | Mar 1, 2015 10:59:07 AM | 19

    "What would The West have to gain from this assassination? "

    One has only to tune in to America's MSCM ( Main Stream Corporate Media), and the headline "News" programs, to answer that question.

    Pat Bateman | Mar 1, 2015 11:34:17 AM | 22

    If I had spent months fighting in East Ukraine for "New Russia", having seen what I'd seen, done what I done, and returned to find this guy bumping his gums on the radio rubbishing my fallen comrades and my beloved President, I'd have no qualms about putting a bullet in his back either.

    But then again, isn't the image of a dead political opponent lying on a bridge overlooked by the Kremlin a bit rich? I mean, short of a dagger lodged between his shoulder blades with the inscription "if found, please return to Mr Putin", I can't think of a more over-egged attempt at trying to implicate the Government. And on the night before an opposition rally Nemtsov hoped to lead. I mean, come on.

    Surely even an enraged nationalist would not have missed this.

    ohmyheck | Mar 1, 2015 11:35:57 AM | 23

    Fort Rus is all over this. They have translated conversations from a wiretap. Wonder where they got those? Anyway, heeeeeeeere's Boris:

    http://fortruss.blogspot.de/2015/02/nemtsov-wire-taps-how-to-organize.html

    And everything else: http://fortruss.blogspot.de/

    guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 12:05:08 PM | 25

    Live by the sword, die by the sword. Nemtsov oversaw Russia's transition to a lawless, wild west where tens of millions suffered and died from crime, drugs, depression and privation - and now he met the same fate he helped condemn so many to during the 1990s. The same fate he was actively working to condemn tens of millions more to.

    B makes a great point. Nemtsov, like Navalny, are only "opposition figures" in the mind of their boosters inside the Beltway. Neither are well loved. Neither have the best interests for Russia in mind - Navalny would like to split the country on ethnic lines, Nemtsov would have like to sent it back to the 1990s dark ages. Both are intent on delivering Russia over to the west - whole, or in bite-sized pieces.

    The New York Observer has an interesting piece entitled "Slain Russian's Complicated Romantic Life May Be Key to the Case". Nemtsov comes off accurately as a foul-mouthed, oversexed Bill Clinton³ (though, I have to say, Nemtsov at least has better taste). The man had three beautiful wives, yet was still out trying to score with 19 year olds. Good for him - though one gets the distinct impression that maybe he has more interest in power for the sake of the young women it attracts than anything else (I don't know if anyone has searched the Epstein/Clinton flight manifests for his name, but it would probably be wise). In any case, this is not the kind of behavior Russians like to see in their leaders, any more than Americans would accept it in theirs.

    I suppose we might look at his young Ukrainian girlfriend (worth a peek anyway). She had just arrived from Kiev and is now missing so cannot be questioned by police. Did she lead him to his death? Killing off their own supporters to score political points certainly is the MO of Right Sektor, Yats, and that beast Nuland - that we do know.

    Though there are many open questions, yet we get these kinds of headlines we see in the Western media:


    • Boris Nemtsov Exposed Putin's Corruption-And Paid With His Life
    • Boris Nemtsov's murder is another dark sign for Russia
    • 'They shot Nemtsov. He is dead.' Fierce Putin critic reportedly gunned down in Moscow

    guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 12:15:24 PM | 28

    It's all propaganda coming from the US and the US is at war with Russia. So nothing more needs to be said. They don't know what happened- though their trolls like are working double time to capitalize on his death, here and in Russia. The American people will no more be allowed to know the truth about this incident anymore than we were told the facts about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

    Lies and propaganda is the order of the day. To expect anything less from the United States at this point would be like expecting the sun to suddenly rise at midnight.

    In my reading, I have found it amazing the distinct muted response by the USSR to the deaths of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK. These were all events that the Soviets could have capitalized on wildly but did not.

    And of course we should consider the high caliber of those men - especially of Martin Luther King - compared with Nemtsov. MLK's murder set off an insurrection that spanned the country. No doubt the US would like to see the same thing - but it won't happen. Few love Nemtsov and he certainly did not love Russia.

    I noticed CNN couldn't resist doing a little "product placement" as the odious Wolf Blitzer brought up Nemtsov's CNN interview with Anthony Bourdain.

    ben | Mar 1, 2015 12:17:14 PM | 29

    guest77 @ 25:

    "Lies and propaganda is the order of the day. To expect anything less from the United States at this point would be like expecting the sun to suddenly rise at midnight."

    Excellent post, and summation.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 1, 2015 12:21:25 PM | 31

    @22 Wanting a particular outcome can cloud judgement, and even a "Russian nationalist" or a hold over communist might be expected to be hailed as a hero for offing the servants of international bankers.

    Given the set up, the location might have been picked as a known location where a hooker from Kiev could bring her John with a way for the gunmen to get away. If they chose an apartment or hotel, they run the risk of construction or trucks unloading in alleys. The Kremlin is an open area. It's accessible which means there are people at any time of day, and that means the police can't tear through the roads or even shut down raids just to get one car despite what movies try to teach us. The Los Angeles police "chases" last so long because they are clearing the roads.

    In the aftermath of the Boston marathon, everyone saw a person with a package, and the two were only nabbed because one shot a random cop in a spot where blending in might not be possible.

    Personally, I believe the CIA/Kiev element was involved which is why the description of "opposition leader" was out there so early. With no evidence or more than anyone else, I could come up with a rationale explanation as to why a Putin ally might be behind the operation. An ally might think Putin is still wavering between Europe and Eurasia and needs to be forced into an irrevocable separation and knowing the western media the murder might do the trick.

    Alberto | Mar 1, 2015 2:40:15 PM | 45

    When the Ukraine putsch offensive starts in March it will be a short lived Charlie Foxtrot*.

    Let me ask you this Question. What do John Kerry, Joe Biden, Brzezinski and quite possibly Kissinger have in common? I believe they are all either Jesuit trained or actual Jesuits. ALL WWII Fascist States were Roman Catholic. The Kiev putsch junta bears all the trappings of Roman Catholic savagery, assassination of opponents, displays of pseudo crucifix insignia, crude assassination of opponents and Fascist military trappings.

    The Church of Rome is the antithesis of the Constitution of the United States of America.


    *Cluster F*#K

    Just my opinion. I could be right.

    guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 3:49:10 PM | 49

    Meanwhile, in Ukraine: Lvov KPU Cadre Rostislav Vasilko in Kiev: "They Drove Needles under My Fingernails, Beat Me with Clubs"

    But no matter that. He's not a neo-liberal US ass kisser so who cares, right?

    PeteCaroll | Mar 1, 2015 3:53:12 PM | 51

    http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/international/324295/ally-of-ousted-ukraine-leader-found-dead-in-apparent-suicide

    Kiev--Ukrainian police on Saturday said a leading ally of former president Viktor Yanukovych was found dead after falling from his 17th storey Kiev flat in an apparent suicide.

    Former lawmaker Mykhaylo Chechetov -- one of the most prominent politicians during Kremlin-backed Yanukovych's time in power -- was facing criminal charges for abuse of power over attempts to crush protests that eventually toppled his former boss.

    Investigators said that Chechetov, 61, was found dead late Friday in front of his home after apparently throwing himself from his apartment window.

    Piotr Berman | Mar 1, 2015 3:56:35 PM | 52

    I think that Demian read the same comment in Russkaya Vesna as I did. Slightly bizarre, seemingly written in "been there, done that". Like, "when we were putting together a hit squad, we would insist on a control shot". However, the killer was not a novice, he pumped six shots without slightest hesitation. However, only four shots hit the torso, and the killer sloppily made no control shot once the body hit the pavement. One interpretation is that the hit man did not care too much if Nemtsov would survive or not, and that is consistent with some scenarios, like "mess up Russian politics" or "stop him from messing with this girl".

    The location of the hit was very brazen, police was there in less than 2 minutes. That points to authorities, but the sloppy style does not. My first girlfriend and her friend were in a shooting club, if you train, a carefully aimed shot hits a man's eye from 80 feet (for 10, you must have mostly 10s to be competitive), and quickly aimed shot hits a spot on the torso with the size of a fist (10) or somewhat larger (9). A person trained for inter-collegiate competitions or special forces would not miss a shot.

    My impression was that while Putin is not a "model democrat", he has a certain style of dispatching his opponents that does not involve killing. Lower level criminal organizations may have local political ties, and inconvenient people may get shot. If someone would cross certain Kadyrov in a bad way, a gold-plated pistol would be dropped by a hit man (after the hit), that guy is definitely special.

    Alberto | Mar 1, 2015 5:55:13 PM | 57

    "These chinks in the Freemason brick wall are spreading and the City of London is becoming increasingly desperate."

    ALAN comment 46 ...

    What about this?

    "
    It speaks to the globalist agenda of a one-world-economic system and a one-world-government and how it is being achieved. I remind you that the House of Rothschild has been the "Fiduciary" agent for the Vatican's money-lending activities since back to around 1823. The Vatican and the Rothschild's have been interlocked ever since. The Rothschild's are the bankers for the Vatican. The Vatican is the headquarters of the old Holy Roman Empire. The sitting pope is the 'Pontifex Maximus', the office of the last Caesar of the old Roman Empire."

    AND THIS ...

    "The Bank of England and Vatican split the take 40/60; 40% to the Bank of England and 60% to the Vatican."

    source - http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/sep2014/pastorbob913-10.htm

    Google search 'Vatican 60% City of London 40%

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Vatican+60%25+City+of+London+40%25

    Ulster | Mar 1, 2015 7:13:29 PM | 58

    I can imagine "b" writing about the death of Trotsky in 1940. It would go something like this:

    So someone killed Leon Trotsky in Mexico. Whodunnit?

    Trotsky was a marginal politician. No one would vote for him in the USSR. It would be ridiculous to call him "opposition". He posed no threat to Stalin.

    Also, Stalin would not gain anything from it. The public image of USSR would only suffer from this provocation.

    (Oh, I know Trotsky received numerous death threats from Kremlin, but it's irrelevant here, they were just talking)

    Also, if NKVD wanted to kill Trotsky, can you imagine them using an... ice axe? Why would the most sophisticated secret service in the world use an ice axe?

    And can you imagine a person called Ramon Mercader to be a Soviet agent? Did you notice that his name is an anagram to Acme Armor Nerd?

    Mexico is far from the USSR. And USA is close to Mexico.

    So, whodunnit? Your guess is as good as mine.

    Lone Wolf | Mar 1, 2015 8:41:32 PM | 62

    @Ulster@58

    I can imagine "b" writing about the death of Trotsky in 1940. It would go something like this:

    I am flabbergasted at your utter lack of historical perspective. How can you compare a larger-than-life historical figure such as Trotsky, to this Russian neo-liberal loser whose greatest achievement in life was to be deputy minister to a depraved drunk, appointed to manage the massive theft of Russia's energy sector? Boris Nemtsov compared to Lev Davidovich Trotsky, leader of the 1905/1917 revolutions, commander of the glorious Red Army, who defeated the US/Eurostan-supported White Armies and secured the existence of Russia, surrounded as it was on all sides by the same old same old bastards who are going at it again. Whatever opinion anyone has of Trotsky, his contribution to the survival of Russia is undeniable, and comparing him to a political whore is not only blatantly disgraceful, it is the ultimate show of historical ignorance.

    Demian | Mar 1, 2015 9:09:51 PM | 63

    @Lone Wolf #62:

    Lev Davidovich Trotsky, leader of the 1905/1917 revolutions, commander of the glorious Red Army, who defeated the US/Eurostan-supported White Armies

    A year ago, I probably would have been upset by that. But not anymore. We are all reconciled now.

    @ALL:

    I'm back to my original view that this was a US false flag. As Tony Carlucci points out, the timing was suspicious: a color revolution style protest was planned for today. The reason the hit was not professionally done is that the US is now so out of its depth in Russia that it can't even find a decent hit man.

    Speaking of hit men, this is what the real ones are like. This is one of my favorite trailers. (I usually avoid trailers altogether.)

    Get Carter music trailer

    And lest anyone has forgotten, The Human League in their epochal Dare did a cover of this.

    Demian | Mar 1, 2015 10:18:57 PM | 68

    @jfl #67:

    Are 80% of the Russian people still behind their government?

    I can't remember where I read this, I believe it was an opinion piece in a British newspaper, but most Russians now believe that the US has declared war against Russia. Under such circumstances, the "liberal opposition" has no chances. I am not even bothering to read about this demonstration, to find out how many people showed up.

    If the hit on Nemtsov really was ordered by the CIA, that indicates that the US foreign policy elite has no understanding of Russia. The State Department has this model of color revolutions. Since they have worked in Arab countries and in ex-Soviet ones, the State Department figures that they can work in Russia, too. So it keeps on trying. It just can't let go, like a nasty dog that has bitten your leg. But Russia is not like those countries. Russians have a memory of the USSR being a superpower and a rival of the US. Thus, this idea of coming to the "American side" simply is no longer appealing to Russians (with the exception of a small corrupt or brainwashed "liberal" minority), as it still is to Poles and Ukrainians, for example. China is like Russia in this respect, so it's not as if Russia is special.

    The Western press says that Victoria Nuland is fluent in Russian. I somehow doubt that. She shows no understanding of the country, which I think a person would have just by virtue of knowing the language.

    Vintage Red | Mar 1, 2015 11:50:39 PM | 72

    jfl asked @ 65/67:

    "Will there be anti-anti-government follow-up, of any size? ... Better, I should say a pro-government follow-up?"

    Even better--from Fort Russ:

    The "Russian Maidan" turns into a "Rally of the Patriots"

    Lone Wolf | Mar 2, 2015 12:37:06 AM | 73

    Fort Russ question from Vintage Red link (thanks for the breaking news!): Was Nemtsov's murder fruitless?

    Not at all, not at all. Ukinazis will now begin to understand they are Russia's enemy, and that's no joke for anybody.

    Odessa Massacre organizer comes to Moscow to "pay his respects" to Nemtsov, gets arrested

    Demian | Mar 2, 2015 1:01:48 AM | 75

    A Russian blogger writes that the hit is part of the US project to remove Putin from power. Destabilizing Russia by means of the Ukraine has not worked.

    Google translation

    Thirdeye | Mar 2, 2015 2:55:24 AM | 80

    I'm guessing associates of Nemtsov who felt they had been wronged, taking advantage of the timing to make the hit look like a political hit. A vigilante hit from the Duginite nationalist fringe isn't out of the question either. IMO the hit was carried out in a manner too unprofessional and risky to be the work of true cloak-and-dagger professionals. It wasn't too long ago that oligarchs used Mafiya goons to do their dirty work, and the Nemtsov hit seems to fall within that M.O. Nowadays, that sort of thing is one of the side jobs of the volunteer battalions in Ukraine.

    Nemtsov was a hustler and a swindler who probably made a list of enemies as long as your arm. His association with the opposition reeked of opportunism - a gambit to revive a fading political career. He acccepted grants for "opposition research" then treated himself to lavish, whoremongering vacations in Dubai. His funders, including Kiev, had nothing to show for their largesse. And we haven't even considered the possible enemies gained in shady business "deals."

    Young Anna may just be a very lucky innocent bystander, or she may have been part of the setup. She seems to be having memory problems. Her lawyer from Kiev seems nervous.

    [Feb 25, 2015] Ukraine Enters The Endgame

    We Weimar'd some folks via color revolution instead of WWI. Mission Accomplished... "Russia will cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev fails to pay in "three or four days," President Vladimir Putin said, adding that this "will create a problem" for gas transit to Europe."
    Feb 25, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    The Hryvnia weakened over the weekend to UAH 30 vs. the USD, prompting the Ukrainian authorities to tighten FX controls and to intervene by a reported US$80mn today, and causing a further weakening of the currency to UAH 40 on the black market as of this morning. While pressures have subsided somewhat (with black-market, mid-market spot now around UAH 33), in our view, the current FX controls are only likely to provide temporary relief to the currency and, thus, introduce risks that the authorities could tighten FX controls further

    ... ... ...

    There are several causes for the weakening of the Hryvnia:

    • Net private capital outflows (excluding net IMF/official sector flows), which stood at an estimated US$10bn in 2014. This number excludes US$3.7bn in repayments to the IMF and about US$4.5bn in debt service on external sovereign bonds.
    • Current account and trade deficits, due to the collapse in exports and despite the fact that domestic demand has weakened sharply.
    • Monetary financing of Ukraine's fiscal deficits.

    While Ukraine's current account and trade balances should close as domestic demand continues to contract and as the Hryvnia has weakened further, capital flight continues, with bank FX deposit outflows of US$600-700mn/month in November-January. Moreover, monetization of the deficit has accelerated as local banks are no longer able to absorb domestic bond issuance. The share of domestic government bonds owned by the NBU has risen to 71% in January, from 59% one year prior, with the share held by domestic banks falling by the same amount (to 20%). Meanwhile, narrow money continues to grow at around 15-20%yoy, at a time when domestic credit is now contracting by 10%yoy. While money supply growth in the mid-single digits in a context of weak credit growth may have been offset for most of 2014 by large-scale FX interventions by the NBU, withdrawing liquidity, FX interventions have slowed in H2-2014 and the NBU reportedly stopped intervening in February (although it intervened once again by US$80mn today). This has caused assets on the NBU's balance sheet to grow by about 60%yoy in recent months and by 8%mom in January (seasonally-adjusted). In our view, with the economy and cash demand weakening, domestic credit shrinking and an absence of liquidity withdrawal via interventions, money supply growth at the current pace will ultimately prove inflationary and will cause the Hryvnia to weaken further.

    While monetary financing of the deficit may debase the value of the Hryvnia in the medium term, it is the shortage of FX in the system that has caused the proximate pressure on the currency, as NBU reserves declined to US$6.4bn in January (4 weeks of imports) and are likely to decline to US$5-5.5bn in February (3 weeks of import cover). These international reserves include about US$1bn in monetary gold, so the liquid amount of reserves is likely to fall to US$4-4.5bn in February (2.5 weeks of imports).

    … raising short-term risks, until IMF funds arrive …

    In our view, while the current FX controls may provide some temporary relief, pressure is likely to continue to build on the Hryvnia until expectations stabilize, confidence is restored, and the country's FX reserves are replenished. Given the poor liquidity and destabilization of expectations in the FX market, the ongoing conflict in Donbass that undermines confidence, and the continued need to import natural gas and other essential goods and make external debt payments, these factors are likely to continue to exert pressure on the Hryvnia, at least until the IMF Board approves the newly-agreed program and makes its first disbursement. However, this will likely take at a minimum 2-3 weeks and there are risks of delays. First, the authorities must fulfil their prior actions for the program, and notably the Rada must approve a new budget law. This is scheduled to take place in a session on March 3, although PM Yatseniuk is attempting to accelerate this process by holding an extraordinary Rada session to approve the legislation. Even if the session is moved forward, in our view, there is no guarantee that the law will be approved immediately and delays are possible. Once prior actions are fulfilled, the IMF Board can meet, approve the new program, then disburse funds shortly thereafter. Our base case is that this will take place in mid-March (the current board review date is reportedly scheduled for March 11), although it is possible that this could be delayed. With the current pace of reserve depletion and pressure build-up on the Hryvnia, it is possible that the IMF funds may not arrive quickly enough. This raises the short-term risk of a significant further increase in pressure on the Hryvnia.

    … and implying potential need for emergency policy action

    Given the balance of payments and monetary pressures on the currency, the authorities and international donors, in our view, have several policy options. First, the Ukrainian authorities could tighten FX controls further. In the extreme, this could potentially involve a bank deposit freeze, a ban on retail FX purchases and/or moratorium on external payments and complete closure of the capital account. Second, international donors (bilateral lenders and IFIs) could recognize the fragility of the current situation and the fact that the IMF timeframe may prove to be too slow to stabilize the currency. Thus, in our view, the international community could make available emergency funds in the coming days or weeks, effectively bridging financing for Ukraine until the IMF disbursement arrives. However, bureaucratic, legal and political hurdles may exist to any large-scale emergency disbursement to Ukraine, either bilaterally or multilaterally. Thus, there is no guarantee that such emergency funds could or would be made available. This introduces further short-term policy uncertainties.

    Finally, the recent and sharp weakening of the Hryvnia, as well as significant recent shifts in money demand and supply, could necessitate an overhaul of some of the IMF's program assumptions and targets. In our view, this could require further technical work on the part of the IMF and could cause additional delays to disbursement of IMF funds. As the monetary and financial dynamics evolve rapidly, so may the IMF's working program assumptions and the parameters of the program.

    actionjacksonbrownie

    The truly crazy part of all this, is that the average ukrop "patriot" STILL thinks the u.s. is only there to help them, and russia is the root of all evil.

    The farce is strong in this one.

    Icelandicsaga.....

    Mexico wont fade away .. we will harmonize . integrate . and become a bad case of Brazil disease .. top crust and the millions below.WE will blend into NORTH AMERIC the meme . .keep saying that NORTH AMERICA . . we are no longer USA . we are NORTH AMERICA .. say it over and over again .... we already got the cartels and corruption and 20 million illegals.. why not the entire enchilada. so to speak. Canada wont be too happy about it .. we already tried to scam their water resources to fix water shortages in the southeast .. they refused. but hey . there is always tomorrow... .

    ThroxxOfVron

    "Moreover, monetization of the deficit has accelerated as local banks are no longer able to absorb domestic bond issuance. The share of domestic government bonds owned by the NBU has risen to 71% in January, from 59% one year prior, with the share held by domestic banks falling by the same amount (to 20%). Meanwhile, narrow money continues to grow at around 15-20%yoy, at a time when domestic credit is now contracting by 10%yoy. While money supply growth in the mid-single digits in a context of weak credit growth may have been offset for most of 2014 by large-scale FX interventions by the NBU, withdrawing liquidity, FX interventions have slowed in H2-2014 and the NBU reportedly stopped intervening in February (although it intervened once again by US$80mn today). This has caused assets on the NBU's balance sheet to grow by about 60%yoy in recent months and by 8%mom in January (seasonally-adjusted). "

    They are printing with complete wreckless criminal abandon: bonds and currency!

    The level of monetization is way more than triple what The US Treasury and The FED have admitted to colluding together to float the system with as a gross percentage of bonds and currency en todo. ..& The FED had a huge stock of MBS to soak as well as the global payments system to disburse the emission to

    This is a massive torrent of raw unsterilized counterfeiting of preposterous proportion to the existing stock.

    Christine LaGarde presonally sent the Ukrainians letters telling them to flat out stop it or the IMF wouldn't give 'em any more emergency loans.

    "We Weimar'd some folks."

    This is gonna be one for the history books easily rivaling the German and Hungarian tsunamis of the last century.

    There is no way in hell this can be reversed or mitigated at this point. Ukraine is doomed to suffer the full destructive force of a currency collapse. The damage is by no means completed...

    IMHO, regretably, the Ukrainian citizenry would have been far better off being quietly wholly subsumed by Russia than face this tragedy. Everyone is trying to 'save' Ukraine ( for their own greedy purposes ) and they are burning it to the ground 'saving' it.

    Disgusted and anguished do not fully convey the feelings I am experiencing...

    IF you do such things as pray, you should pray for these people; -they are going to go straight through Hell.

    Majestic12

    "IMHO, regretably, the Ukrainian citizenry would have been far better off being quietly wholly subsumed by Russia than face this tragedy. "

    Russia does not want their Nazi, lazy asses. Who would. The East is the center of industry and called "restive". Oh, and they all speak Russian?

    Who knew. Hard-working, productive, hard playing people, and they're Russian?

    ThroxxOfVron

    Partition would have been a better answer than what is unfolding.

    Who would actually want the 'Nazi, lazy'? Average Ukrainians, the EU, the British, the Israelis, the USA?

    Unless I am mistaken the general consensus is that true Nazi types are not really welcome in most 'polite' company.

    They would be a dangerous fringe element no matter the constitution of the nation unless they were to seize power and use it to disenfranchise the remainder, and any fringe/minority ideological element that seizes power and disemfranchises the remainder majority is unpopular no matter the ideology. See: Neocon, Neolib, Zionism, Feudalism, 1%er, Junta, Annanuki, etc...

    The fact is that Ukraine only has a tiny minority that espouse such ideological concepts, and I suspect many of these only use the imagery as a front for more classic mobsterism and warlordism. Espoused Nazis may be a dominant militant organization in some parts of Ukraine; but, I am doubtful that Ukraine is generally predominantly dominated by Nazi ideology...

    Motasaurus

    That's what the support of the neo-Nazis is all about. They are just replaying WWII, only slight further to the West. After all the original German Nazis were funded, finances, politically supported and built by the Western powers terrified of being voraciously murdered in bolshevic revolutions.

    Of course those "powers" were played for fools by those who fund them. I am fairly convinced that the entire 20th Century was simply a socio-psychological experiment to determine whether National Socialism or Communism was a better method for controlling the masses.

    Jack Burton

    The end game will have winners. Expect the usual suspects to walk away with some nice profits. And the Ukrainian farm lands, fracking potential and what little of industry remains, will all be sold to western baks for pennies on the dollar. Again, you can be certain the usual suspects, whose name can not be mentioned, will own Ukraine.

    The people went to Maidan on the promise of a German lifestyle and EU passports which entail freedom of movement within the EU. Thus the mass exodus of youth for Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Madrid. In the flush of freedom, at least 2 million youth will move within weeks. More will follow as they arrange transport. Anywhere in Germany or west of Germany will be their target sites.

    czarangelus

    I am incredulous watching the human citizens of this world take careful, precise aim at their own feet. After thousands of years of written history of the same things not working!

    NoDebt

    We're not repeating the mistakes of the past because we're unmindful of history. We're being LED through this circle of rise and fall by the elites. That have it all mapped out. Not to the day, but they know damned well the waypoints to make the turns.

    Let me ask you something. When was the last time you heard a politician or banker talk about avoiding the mistakes of the past? Never. They only talk about what "needs" to be done next. And they walk the world around in a big circle like at the pony rides.

    Supernova Born

    "Russia will cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev fails to pay in "three or four days," President Vladimir Putin said, adding that this "will create a problem" for gas transit to Europe."

    -RT

    DutchBoy2015

    Putin should have done that LONG ago. Fuck the NeoNazis of Kiev

    Buckaroo Banzai

    The "NeoNazis of Kiev" will do just fine no matter what. It's the average Ukrainian that's going to get fucked.

    suteibu

    Our US democratically elected government, making friends...er...slaves all over the world.

    It's like the War on Poverty gone international.

    At some point in near future, Americans traveling abroad will be considered suspected terrorists requiring a local to vouch for an entry visa.

    Motasaurus

    Every "war on" in post WW2 history seems to have only created more of the thing. War on drugs? More drugs. War on poverty? More poverty. War on terror? More terror.

    What we need is a good old fashioned, openly declared war, but this time put it on something useful like, manufacturing and the middle class.

    We've got to stop this bullsh*t coming out of the ministry of truth where everything that is "being supported" gets destroyed and everything that has been declared war on thrives.

    krage_man

    The chance of getting the money is gettin slim with each second. The parlament is refusing to vote for the strings attached to it so far. It has a reason. Like after it, payments for basic services - heat, gas, electicity will exceed average monthly salary! Another condition is restructuring of the debt ( that is where 15bn come from) , which Putin refuses.

    IMF may give the money under pressure from US/EU to preserve the gas flow but this will never be paid back. I question if donors would agree to lose money this way at all... Ukraine need about 150 billions to recover..

    Now, Ukraine has a couple of billions left and this is it, huge debt on salary to goverment workers, no tax collection 30% fall of industrial output, etc. .... the state is failing.. we should expect emergency UN food shipment in a few months...

    markar

    The US/EU/IMF will be pouring billions down this rathole they call a country to the tune of trillions to keep this turd on life support-- until the asset stripping is completed. China, Russia & the BRICs better start demanding something besides worthless $s for their goods soon.

    vincenze

    Every Ukrainian will tell you that it's Putin's fault.

    DutchBoy2015

    I am sure Yats the Rat already has a couple of billion squirreled away and a place to bail out to...

    DutchBoy2015

    This is a pretty good video ''Crimea for Dummies''

    Of course its BANNED in the USA LOL

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1zvb_ottiw

    WTFUD

    From my extensive travels around eastern Europe i find it incomprehensible that the false lure of western riches by association still holds any sway.

    In fact i struggle to find ANY evidence that any one of these countries has developed its infrastructure or raised its standard of living in the last 20/25 years.

    Mini-cab drivers, hotel work and strip clubs remain the top 3 occupations for those who happen to escape.

    The grass is not always greener. . . .

    Advice - Look East

    [Feb 25, 2015] Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa review – an unrivalled account

    Notable quotes:
    "... 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. ..."
    Feb 19, 2015 | The Guardian

    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 £15.19 (RRP £18.99), 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?

    [Feb 24, 2015] UK Journalist Calls Out Fraud on Readers in Coverage of HSBC

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered credentialed journalists in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap. ..."
    "... JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks ..."
    "... ying and yang ..."
    Feb 24, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

    "An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will be undermined...

    The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril."

    A 'principled resignation' is a phenomenon somewhat unfamiliar to US readers. Rarely does a public figure or a politician resign because they is something they won't do to get along. They resign because they get caught doing something that is so repugnant to public sentiment that they are finished, at least for a while. We have a marvelous way of excusing and ignoring behavior in the selected elite that would shame a garbageman into changing their name and moving.

    And so a decline in journalistic standards is not as great of an issue in the States, because the major media was captured by a handful of corporations in the 1990's, in part thanks to Bill Clinton's change in ownership rules.

    So one might ask, what standards? What were the standards that allowed the lies that have led to war, that covered up mass spying and torture, and that allowed one of the greatest thefts of the public trust in history to occur in the 'bank bailouts,' with a coordinated suppression of any meaningful protest?

    In the recent World Press Freedom Index, the US ranked 49th, in same tier as Romania, El Salvador, and Niger.

    Their standards have long been so low that journalist may be more of a hollow title on a business card than a calling to a profession with time-honored standards.

    In the States, journalistic independence and integrity were some years ago led down a blind alley, and quietly strangled.

    The capture of key institutions of democracy are already well underway or in place. Where this leads, one cannot say. But it does not bode well.

    Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered 'credentialed journalists' in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.

    Related: JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks

    Why I Have Resigned From the Telegraph

    Peter Osborne

    17 February 2015

    ...With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed...

    This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.

    It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury, as director of communications in 10 Downing Street...

    This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.

    Read the entire article at OpenDemocracy here.

    Here are some selections from financial television. I do not mean to pick on CNBC. Bloomberg and Fox are certainly no better, and in many ways probably worse.

    And the mainstream media now pretty much follows the same patterns on its high gloss coverage whether it be on television or in print.

    But if you watch the shows on Sunday morning where very serious people come to discuss important public and foreign policy issues of war and peace, basic freedoms, the economy, what you find is a pre-sorted selection of talking heads hurling the latest ying and yang of corporatist spin at each other, with the occasional honest individual, never to be invited again, who is harangued by the network 'journalist.'

    [Feb 20, 2015] German newspaper BILD gets inside US-NATO-Nuland planning session

    Fort Russ

    German newspaper BILD gets inside US-NATO-Nuland planning session

    General Breedlove tells US diplomats and select members of Congress what Ukraine needs.

    Das Bild, published February 19, 2015

    The Bild headline:

    "Cold Feet" "Bullshit," "Angst"

    What US Politicians REALLY think about the Germans in the Ukraine-crisis

    February 19, 2015

    Translated from German by Tom Winter

    Munich - While a bloody war rages in eastern Ukraine, the next dangerous conflict is breaking out in the Security Conference, a diplomatic battle of nerves centered on the question whether the West ought to supply armaments to the regime in Kiev. The opponents are actually allies: the USA against Europe, and Germany in particular.

    Behind the soundproof doors of the conference room in the Bayerischer Hof hotel, the Americans speak about Germans in rather derogatory terms.

    Friday evening a bit after 7 p.m. on the sixth floor of the luxury hotel, according to BILD's sources, American four-star generals, diplomats, and high-ranking US politicians held a frank discussion in a "briefing room," and held forth about the Germans.

    "Defeatist," is what a US Senator called German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, because she no longer believes in a Kiev victory. The phrase "German defeatist," according to our information, was often heard in the room.

    Defense minister Ursula von der Leyen, (here with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg) counts as a defeatist among the US diplomats since she no longer believes in a victory of Ukraine against Russia.

    Obama's top diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland, called the Chancellor's trip to Putin, "Merkel's Moscow thing." Another US Foreign office type spoke of the Europeans' "Moscow bullshit."

    And US Senator John McCain talked himself into a rage: "History shows us that dictators always take more, whenever you let them. They can't be brought back from their brutal behavior when you fly to Moscow to them, just like someone once flew to this city."

    Merkel's diplomatic initiative in the Ukraine crisis stands at the center of American anger. Reason: the Americans don't believe that Putin can't be made to back off without a massive push, and the Europeans have no wish to build up a greater push.

    "They're afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia," said Nuland. Another US politician: "It's painful to see that our NATO partners are getting cold feet."

    Obama's close confidante Victoria Nuland is the one who set the tone for her American colleagues at the prelude to the evening: "We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them."

    Several US politicians appeared to have hesitations about weapons supply to Kiev. One asked whether it was only a tactic, a false promise to get the Europeans to put more pressure on Putin. "No, it's not a tactic to push the Europeans," answered Nuland dryly. "We're not going to sent any four divisions into Ukraine, as the Europeans fear. It's only a relatively moderate delivery of anti-tank weapons."

    "But what will we tell the Europeans if we really decide on delivering weapons," asked one Congressman. "What's our story then?"

    NATO Commander General Philip Breedlove was there. He answered: "We're not on a footing to deliver so many weapons they could defeat Russia [!!! -tr] That's not our goal. But we have to try to raise the battlefield cost for Putin, to slow down the whole problem, so sanctions and other measures can take hold."

    Again top diplomat Nuland, who speaks fluent Russian and served as Dick Cheney's security advisor took it up: "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"

    General Breedlove clarified for the US politicians, what an actual arms delivery would look like. "Russian artillery is by far what kills most Ukrainian soldiers, so a system is needed that can localize the source of fire and repress it. Ukrainian communications are disrupted or completely swamped, so they need uninterceptible communications gear. Then I won't talk about any anti-tank rockets, but we are seeing massive supply convoys from Russia into Ukraine. The Ukrainians need the capability to shut off this transport. And then I would add some small tactical drones."

    NB: These planned weapons and systems are so technically demanding that US soldiers would probably have to train the Ukrainian army. Thus the USA would be intervening with their own troops in the conflict.

    There hasn't been this much conflict between Europeans and Americans since the Munich Security conference of 2003, shortly before the beginning of the Iraq war. In the morning Chancellor Angela Merkel travels to Washington to US President Barak Obama. The two have much to discuss…

    Translator's note: This material is visible throughout the German press, and it all comes back to this article in Das Bild, and the source for this Bild article had to be German Intelligence. The German press is full of praise for their peace-making Chancellor, and apparently the Chancellory is committed to making Minsk II a success. Further, this item removes, and was doubtless intended to remove, any doubts about NATO being a US instrument. Also to be noted here is a complete zeroing out of the five or six million Russian-speaking inhabitants of Lugansk and Donetsk; they don't exist, it's just Russia.

    [Feb 20, 2015] When Nazi Hands Rock American Cradles

    When the $5 Billion Victoria Nuland bragged about giving Ukraine is looked at, a lot of that funding went to the development of youth organizations in Ukraine that were developed by the OUNb-UCCA based on what they taught children in America. That was how the nationalist base for Maidan came into being.
    February 18, 2015 | Fort Russ

    GH Eliason

    Are Ukrainian-American children brought up to be Bandera followers? If the children of all the Eastern European and Baltic emigre populations bring their children up in American this way, will it have an effect on non-emigre children in the US? With a combined population of 20 million career age emigre ultra nationalists according to their own estimates in the United States alone, you had better find out.

    Was the Euromaidan which was funded heavily by the combined emigre populations about democracy? Answering this in a surprise statement at a cabinet meeting on February 10th 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko opened up about the basis of the post-coup Ukrainian state and the ideology it is built on.

    "I think to the contrary that the Galicians are the foundation of the Ukrainian state,"

    This definitely throws a damper on anyone in the EU or USA calling the Euro-maidan a pro-democratic protest or revolution. The Galicians that Poroshenko is referring to formulated the ideology of Stepan Bandera that is now the foundation of post Maidan Ukraine.

    According to Ukrainian-American George Masni, a former UCCA Arizona state president

    "The "simple nationalism" Poroshenko is talking about is love of ones nation that drives to defend it from invaders. This type of nationalism is better known as patriotism."

    If ultra-nationalist ideology wasn't part of the Ukrainian political landscape pre-Maidan, where did it come from? Before 1991 this ideology was foreign in Ukraine except for a tiny minority in the Lviv region.

    The Nazi/ nationalist ideology of Stepan Bandera made its home in the hearts of Eastern European emigres worldwide, particularly in the United States and Canada. Each succeeding generation has been taught to be more dedicated to it than their parents were.

    According to George Masni, former State of Arizona president for the UCCA-OUNb "The type of political brainwashing you are describing never happened to me and as far as I know, in the U.S. at least, this simply does not occur. What I do remember is being taught Ukrainian language, dances, songs, and a general overview of Ukrainian literature and history."

    Below are excerpts from a young Ukrainian-American woman that grew up in the American heartland. She is educated and has a Masters Degree. She knows America fought the 3rd Reich and Nazism/ nationalism. Her own statements are clear that Dr. Rudlings studies and the many other papers written were in fact precise in describing the Bandera kids are even more committed to Ukrainian nationalism within the countries they live in, molding their own culture and politics, as well as Ukraine.

    This upbringing is reinforced with a life long cultural education and celebration of nationalist Galician values, education, job support, and even the emigre choices of religion. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Orthodox religions were reworked to promote Ukrainian nationalism and reinforce it to adherents at the end of the 19th century. Later Protestant beliefs followed suit within the communities and started going mainstream in the 1950's and 60's.

    According to the Manitoba Historical Society "...the establishment of a separate Ukrainian Catholic episcopate was as much a statement of Ukrainian "nationalism" as was the rise of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada."

    With this kind of regulated upbringing it is no shock that even childhood experiences like scouting play a major role in development. Consider the following carefully against what you know about Maidan. In this American girl's own words, her heroes from WWII are the genocidal Waffen SS OUNb Bandera, the mass murderers of 500,000 people.

    American Ukrainian Nationalist on Maidan:

    " I have often thought of my ancestors and how they must have felt during WWII (and earlier liberation movements) and the partisan struggle to liberate Ukraine from totalitarian powers. I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), but never in my life did I think I would feel what they felt, get a taste of war, death, and the fight for freedom, such uncertainty, and love for Ukraine in a context similar to theirs...These sentiments which were felt by Ukrainians in WWII have been transferred to a new generation of Ukrainians who are reliving the liberation movement, re-struggling for a free, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine. Of course, EuroMaidan and Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine .... I feel that I was guided to Ukraine because the love for and attachment to Ukraine was passed down from my grandparents, and as they couldn't return...My grandparents' generation fight for freedom didn't succeed, there was no independent Ukraine after the war, and so being intelligentsia and having taken part in the liberation struggle, my relatives would have been persecuted under the Soviets.

    Thus in 1944 when the Soviets were again approaching western Ukraine, my grandparents had to flee west...Eventually sotnias (defense/ military units) were formed during EuroMaidan and I couldn't help but think that the last time sotnias were formed was during the war by the UPA...The UPA slogan "Glory to Ukraine" and response "Glory to the Heroes" as well as the UPA songs sounded from maidan's across the country, and the black and red UPA flags flew next to the yellow and blue ones. There are in fact a lot more parallels between WWII and EuroMaidan/ the Russian invasion...And once we finally had a taste of victory, finally ousted the corrupt president, finally felt we had a chance to completely reboot the country, root out the Soviet mentality once and for all."- Areta Kovalsky

    When the $5 Billion Victoria Nuland bragged about giving Ukraine is looked at, a lot of that funding went to the development of youth organizations in Ukraine that were developed by the OUNb-UCCA based on what they taught children in America. That was how the nationalist base for Maidan came into being.

    "...rather than acknowledging that nationalism is fundamentally emotional. In truth, you can't really make 'the case' for nationalism; you can only inculcate it, teach it to children, cultivate it at public events."- Anne Applebaum historian for UCCA history project (Wife of Poland's Foreign Minister, Radislaw Sikorski

    What does this have to do with your own little "cubbie or brownie"? Heading toward 1991 Ukrainian scouting was finally accepted by Scouting International as a legitimate scouting organization. Before that they were considered a terrorist breeding group. Cub Scouts and Brownies have the opportunity to share values at Jamborees in America.

    Both PLAST and CYM hold multiple summer camps each year. CYM is more Ukrainian oriented than PLAST but in addition to its education role, it is also a Ukrainian social organization were young people go to meet and have fun.

    The Plast organization is strongly modeled after the American Boy Scouts. It has various numbered scout troops etc. Are the American Boy Scouts - the U.S. version of Nazi boot camps? When an American Boy Scout camp is not readily available, Americans have been known to attend Plast summer camps as a way of getting the same experiences they would get in with the American Boy Scouts (hiking, merit badges etc.). They might get exposed to Ukrainian tradition but many of them freely choose not to participate in those camp activities.- George Masni, former UCCA State of Arizona president.

    On April 23, 2004 the Ukrainian nationalist world mourned the death of Mr. Ivan Kobasa, one of the founders of CYM America and lifelong OUN-UCCA nationalist leader. His obituary says he was a leading member of the OUNb. He made his life's work (55 years) educating young Ukrainian-Americans in the love of God and Ukraine (Ukrainian OUNb nationalism).

    As noted in the UCCA press release in the link above dated 1999, OUNb leader Ivan Kobasa also took responsibility of making sure the Ukrainian-Americans received the proper secondary education at Ukrainian nationalist schools(MAUP) in Ukraine. From the mid 2000's enrollment in this educational system has skyrocketed. Today almost all members of the current Ukrainian government are graduates of this ideological system that was taught to them by moderates like David Duke who is also a graduate of the MAUP system.

    I consider myself to be a reasonably well educated and retired American of Ukrainian descent who has been somewhat active in Ukrainian affairs for over 50 years. I have never been approached to join the super secretive almost legendary OUNb or any of the OUN organizations. Why? I think the answer is quite obvious. In the U.S., other than being referenced in propaganda or other obscure publications, OUNb and its OUN peers are no longer functional organizations and have been completely inactive for at least 4 or more decades. - George Masni UCCA former State of Arizona President.

    Could a life long Ukrainian nationalist and UCCA leader at the state level be unaware that the Ukrainian youth groups sole purpose was to develop youth more committed to the ideals of Stepan Bandera in America and around the world than their forebears? Is it possible that Mr. Masni whose position before 1991 would have been akin to a State Governor for the Ukrainian Government in exile not to know what the National exile government was doing with kids for over 50 years?

    This seems very unlikely considering the first Ukrainian Youth Group in the USA that defined Ukrainian Scouting was literally the scouting group that taught Stepan Bandera his values and political beliefs is PLAST and CYM. Below, and at every CYM branch where its says "patron" it literally means "patron saint." Almost every Ukrainian scout troop has a patron saint that is guilty of crimes against humanity. Most of these Greek Catholic saints were in fact - Waffen SS.

    Can Waffen SS officers and mass murderers like Stepan Bandera be Catholic patron saints in cities like New York, Philadelphia, Stamford CT, or Boston in the year 2015?

    "On October 16, 2011, members of the 54th branch of CYM "Khersones" in Stamford, CT attended a mass and requiem service in honor of the great Ukrainian hero and freedom fighter, Stepan Bandera. It was the first time since its' inception that the branches' members took part in an organized activity together with the greater Ukrainian community of Stamford.

    The SUM members and the faithful present that day enjoyed a beautiful and emotional homily about the life and achievements of Stepan Bandera delivered by Reverend Bohdan Danylo, Rector of St. Basil's Seminary in Stamford. He instructed the children on how they can model their own lives on Bandera's by following his example of self-sacrifice and unwavering dedication to his country. Following the homily, Father Bohdan distributed candles to each child which burned brightly during a stirring execution of the prayer "Vichnaya Pam'yat" in honor of the great hero of the Ukrainian nation."

    ...CYM Geelong(Australia) under the patronage of Stepan Bandera celebrated Stepan Bandera Day in remembrance of the OUN leader...CYM Geelong opened up the event not only to its members but also the wider Ukrainian community not only to remember Stepan Bandera but for all our Ukrainian heroes who lost their lives in the fight for Ukraine's independence. Druh. Marko Tkaczuk showed video clips of the work of OUN and the life of Stepan Bandera..

    They were the SS units that did atrocities so great that Michael Wittmann, Gaupshturmfyurer SS, one of Nazi Germany's most famous tank commanders shows the perspective the 3rd Reich had toward the OUNb Ukrainian nationalists this young woman writes about adoringly.

    "What are Ukrainians - a feral Russian that for the idea of gaining the Ukrainian state is ready to kill even his Frau (wife, woman). They are the perfect fighters against the Red Army. But after that they are subject to a total cleansing (destruction) because they are the worst type of barbarians."

    Wasyl Veryha, former SS officer and prominent Ukrainian historian Interviewed by the CBC Radio in 1987- Veryha insisted, I have never felt to be a Nazi. I never believed in Nazism, and. . .I have never been a fascist. I feel that I am and I always was a Ukrainian patriot. And that's what I am. And if you would ask me another question,if I would do the same thing all over, I would. . .

    When Mr. Masni said that CYM and PLAST was modeled on Boy Scouts did he mean that they are told to model their lives on Nazi mass murderers too? Every scouting branch in the USA is named after an SS officer or an OUNb murderer. One branch is named June 30, 1941 after the day the Nazi Yaroslav Stetsko declared Galicia a free state under Adolf Hitler.

    Each branch including those in the US has a "Patron" saint that was a Nazi war criminal. In the case of Geelong, Australia it is Stepan Bandera.

    Both youth groups were considered a nazi terrorist organization from their inception and on the CIA's list of Nazi terrorist organizations. In the decades before the Soviet Union absorbed West Ukraine the youth groups were covert terrorist cells planting bombs and murdering the people in West Ukraine. In the decade after WWII the Ukrainian youth groups provided the ultra-nationalists that murdered over 28,000 Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil.

    The youth groups have always been integral to the UCCA inculcating ultra-nationalism in Ukrainian- American children.

    Both CYM and PLAST teach the children of the emigres that mass murderers Yaroslav Stetsko and Stepan Bandera are to be admired and emulated as heroes and leaders. Stepan Bandera is painted as a religious saint and literally part of Ukrainian emigre worship as the "saint intercessor."

    Starting with "scouting" children are watched to see which areas they excel in. As they progress with their Ukrainized education, they are also helped along as they start their careers. This focus and help throughout their careers continues as long as they remain Ukrainian nationalists wherever they are.

    Multiculturalism, memory, and ritualization: Ukrainian nationalist monuments in Edmonton, Alberta- Pers Anders Rudling Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity Volume 39, Issue 5, 2011:

    During the Cold War these children grew up and became the strategists that lectured at NATO command. They helped develop the defense industry into what it is today. They gravitated into the military and developed Pysch Warfare in the US Army into what is today. By 1988 General John Hackett Commander of NATO's Northern Army Group and great friend of OUNb leader Yaroslav Stetsko (took over OUNb after Bandera) was convinced the only thing NATO needed to topple the Soviet Union was the Bandera networks (ABN-UCCA-WACL-APCL) and groups.

    If NATO had any credibility the Bandera groups are the worlds masters at infiltrating and manipulating governments, societies, and intervening in protest movements and establishing themselves at the head of the table.

    Post 1991 independent Ukraine, Bandera group emigre kids started migrating en-mass into the human rights field. They are the active groups and foot soldiers of the Color Revolutions.

    The ABN (Anti-Bolshevik Nations) led WACL which was sustained with the resources of the emigres and over 80 countries rolled back into the (WLFD) World League for Freedom and Democracy.

    This was run by Taiwan's APCL. The APCL was formed by Yaroslav Stetsko and Chiang Kai-shek to promote ultra-nationalism throughout the world. The WLFD which is still composed of ultra-nationalists currently writes human rights reports for the UN.

    Do you know who's been influencing your little cubbie lately?

    [Feb 19, 2015] German newspaper BILD gets inside US-NATO-Nuland planning session

    Again top diplomat Nuland, who speaks fluent Russian and served as Dick Cheney's security advisor took it up: "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"
    Feb 19, 2015 | Fort Russ

    German newspaper BILD gets inside US-NATO-Nuland planning session

    General Breedlove tells US diplomats and select members of Congress what Ukraine needs.

    Das Bild, published February 19, 2015

    The Bild headline:

    "Cold Feet" "Bullshit," "Angst"

    What US Politicians REALLY think about the Germans in the Ukraine-crisis

    February 19, 2015

    Translated from German by Tom Winter

    Munich - While a bloody war rages in eastern Ukraine, the next dangerous conflict is breaking out in the Security Conference, a diplomatic battle of nerves centered on the question whether the West ought to supply armaments to the regime in Kiev. The opponents are actually allies: the USA against Europe, and Germany in particular.

    Behind the soundproof doors of the conference room in the Bayerischer Hof hotel, the Americans speak about Germans in rather derogatory terms.

    Friday evening a bit after 7 p.m. on the sixth floor of the luxury hotel, according to BILD's sources, American four-star generals, diplomats, and high-ranking US politicians held a frank discussion in a "briefing room," and held forth about the Germans.

    "Defeatist," is what a US Senator called German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, because she no longer believes in a Kiev victory. The phrase "German defeatist," according to our information, was often heard in the room.

    Defense minister Ursula von der Leyen, (here with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg) counts as a defeatist among the US diplomats since she no longer believes in a victory of Ukraine against Russia.

    Obama's top diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland, called the Chancellor's trip to Putin, "Merkel's Moscow thing." Another US Foreign office type spoke of the Europeans' "Moscow bullshit."

    And US Senator John McCain talked himself into a rage: "History shows us that dictators always take more, whenever you let them. They can't be brought back from their brutal behavior when you fly to Moscow to them, just like someone once flew to this city."

    Merkel's diplomatic initiative in the Ukraine crisis stands at the center of American anger. Reason: the Americans don't believe that Putin can't be made to back off without a massive push, and the Europeans have no wish to build up a greater push.

    "They're afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia," said Nuland. Another US politician: "It's painful to see that our NATO partners are getting cold feet."

    Obama's close confidante Victoria Nuland is the one who set the tone for her American colleagues at the prelude to the evening: "We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them."

    Several US politicians appeared to have hesitations about weapons supply to Kiev. One asked whether it was only a tactic, a false promise to get the Europeans to put more pressure on Putin. "No, it's not a tactic to push the Europeans," answered Nuland dryly. "We're not going to sent any four divisions into Ukraine, as the Europeans fear. It's only a relatively moderate delivery of anti-tank weapons."

    "But what will we tell the Europeans if we really decide on delivering weapons," asked one Congressman. "What's our story then?"

    NATO Commander General Philip Breedlove was there. He answered: "We're not on a footing to deliver so many weapons they could defeat Russia [!!! -tr] That's not our goal. But we have to try to raise the battlefield cost for Putin, to slow down the whole problem, so sanctions and other measures can take hold."

    Again top diplomat Nuland, who speaks fluent Russian and served as Dick Cheney's security advisor took it up: "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"

    General Breedlove clarified for the US politicians, what an actual arms delivery would look like. "Russian artillery is by far what kills most Ukrainian soldiers, so a system is needed that can localize the source of fire and repress it. Ukrainian communications are disrupted or completely swamped, so they need uninterceptible communications gear. Then I won't talk about any anti-tank rockets, but we are seeing massive supply convoys from Russia into Ukraine. The Ukrainians need the capability to shut off this transport. And then I would add some small tactical drones."

    NB: These planned weapons and systems are so technically demanding that US soldiers would probably have to train the Ukrainian army. Thus the USA would be intervening with their own troops in the conflict.

    There hasn't been this much conflict between Europeans and Americans since the Munich Security conference of 2003, shortly before the beginning of the Iraq war. In the morning Chancellor Angela Merkel travels to Washington to US President Barak Obama. The two have much to discuss…

    Translator's note: This material is visible throughout the German press, and it all comes back to this article in Das Bild, and the source for this Bild article had to be German Intelligence. The German press is full of praise for their peace-making Chancellor, and apparently the Chancellory is committed to making Minsk II a success. Further, this item removes, and was doubtless intended to remove, any doubts about NATO being a US instrument. Also to be noted here is a complete zeroing out of the five or six million Russian-speaking inhabitants of Lugansk and Donetsk; they don't exist, it's just Russia.

    [Feb 19, 2015] Brokering power US role in Ukraine coup hard to overlook

    RT News

    After months of denying having a hand in the Ukrainian coupe, US President Barack Obama admitted playing power broker for the "transition." This probably falls short of America's actual involvement.

    READ MORE: Obama openly admits 'brokering power transition' in Ukraine

    Washington was investing heavily in Ukraine long before the Maidan protests started in Kiev in 2013. According to Victoria Nuland, the State Department's top diplomat for Europe, since 1991 America has poured $5 billion of taxpayers' money into what she called assisting Ukrainians in building "democratic skills and institutions."

    Some of the money went into sponsoring various NGOs, political parties and media outlets. For instance, Hromadske.tv, an internet-based television channel created in summer 2013, received a grant of some $50,000 from the US embassy. The channel provided full-time coverage of the Maidan protests and gave a platform to various opposition figures.

    Such funding is a well-known tool of the American government. Washington describes it as promoting a positive change and denies accusations that it gives money to get leverage to pursue its own goals in targeted countries. But in Ukraine US officials played a far more prominent role than simply funding local players.

    Some like film director Oliver Stone even call it a US-staged coup, while former US Congressman Ron Paul called for the US to stop meddling in Ukraine.

    Nuland's cookies

    A parade of Western officials descended on Kiev to support the protesters and discourage President Viktor Yanukovich from taking tougher measures against them. One vocal star of the US political stage, Senator John McCain, enjoyed an evening with opposition leaders and tweeted photos of the crowds in the square. He went on to address the protesters the next day.

    Nuland herself is probably most remembered now for handing out cookies to riot police officers and demonstrators, while on a November 2013 Maidan tour accompanied by Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.

    Read more: 'F**k the EU': Snr US State Dept. official caught in alleged phone chat on Ukraine

    Behind the scene, the duo were engaged in power brokering. In January, it was Pyatt who made radical protesters withdraw from the Ministry of Justice building, which they had previously seized by force. Ukraine's Interior Ministry, then still loyal to Yanukovich, officially thanked the ambassador.

    Later in February, a leaked phone conversation, notable for Nuland's unprintable expletive at her frustration with the EU, revealed the pair discussing who should lead the new Ukrainian government (Arseny Yatsenyuk, incidentally, the current PM) and who should not be in it (Vitaly Klitchko, currently mayor of Kiev).

    Rule by foreigners?

    The US government's support for the post-coup government in Kiev never dwindled even as it went on to encroach on media freedom and the free speech and launched a military crackdown on its dissenting eastern regions. At times, critics say, it was difficult to distinguish the new Ukraine from an entity directly ruled from Washington.

    One ironic episode occurred in December, when the Ukrainian Security Service building flew a US flag alongside a Ukrainian one over its entrance. Photos of the flags were quickly dismissed as a propaganda fake by Ukrainian bloggers, but the SBU later confirmed that it ran up the stars and stripes to honor visiting US Under Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, who is in charge of arms deals with the State Department.

    The debate over the flag was partially fuelled by rumors in Ukraine that the SBU allocated an entire level in its HQ to US consultants, including active CIA agents.

    The rumors may be insulting to Kiev's sovereignty, but there could be some substance behind it. Ukraine didn't hesitate to appoint several foreigners as ministers, hastily giving them Ukrainian citizenship necessary for the jobs. Among them is Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, a former section chief at the US embassy and chair of an investment fund, which distributed US Congress money provided thorough the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

    Biden's chairmanship

    A similar episode transpired in April, when US Vice-President Joe Biden arrived in Kiev on a state visit. The top American official came just after then-acting President Aleksandr Turchinov had declared the military campaign against the rebel forces in Donetsk and Lugansk regions was active. This later escalated into a full-fledged civil war.

    A humorous moment came in Biden's trip when he chaired a session with Ukrainian officials, taking the seat normally reserved for the president of Ukraine. Ironically, Dozhd TV, a leading Russian opposition TV channel, erroneously called Biden the acting president of Ukraine and misquoted him as demanding that Russia "stopped meddling into US internal affairs."

    Read more: White House: No ethical issues with Veep's son joining Ukraine gas giant

    For Biden, Ukraine's economic future is a matter of concern not only due to his office but also due to his family's ties with the Ukrainian energy sector. In May, Ukraine's largest private gas company, Burisma Holdings, announced the appointment of VP Biden's son, Hunter, to its board of directors. The White House insisted the appointment posed no conflict of interest for America's second-ranking public official.

    These and other examples of US "power brokering" raise some doubt about Washington's claimed distance from the regime change in Ukraine. After all, the US has a long record of meddling in other countries' affairs, ousting governments Washington didn't like and imposing those it did. Why would Ukraine be any different, skeptics ask?

    [Feb 18, 2015] A Bloody Retreat From Debaltseve as Ukrainian Forces Suddenly Withdraw

    Feb 18, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    Amid heavy fighting, Ukrainian soldiers were ordered to retreat from the strategic town of Debaltseve, where they had been surrounded by Russian-backed rebels.
    Publish Date February 18, 2015.

    By midday on Wednesday, limping and exhausted soldiers were showing up on the Ukrainian side of the front lines in the conflict, describing a harrowing ordeal that began with a surprise 1 a.m. order to retreat.

    "Many trucks left, and only a few arrived," said one soldier, who offered only his rank (sergeant) and his given name (Volodomyr) as he knelt on the sidewalk smoking. "A third of us made it, at most," the soldier said.

    Others said that a majority, at least, of the soldiers who set off from the town in a column of about 100 trucks had managed to escape the encirclement, many of them straggling out on foot after their vehicles were blown up.

    The order to retreat was kept secret until the last minute, and soldiers were told to prepare in 10 minutes and pile into the beds of troop transport trucks, according to Albert Sardaryen, a 22-year-old medic who made the journey.

    The trucks lined up on the edge of town, Mr. Sardaryen said, while tanks and tracked vehicles formed lines on either side of the truck convoy to try to shield the soldiers. The column drove through farm fields rather than use a main road that had been mined, and the trucks kept their headlights off to make them harder to spot.

    The column came under attack almost immediately, he said, and trucks started breaking down and colliding in the dark. By dawn, the column was strung out on the plain and taking fire from all sides.

    "They were shooting with tanks, rocket propelled grenades and sniper rifles," and firing at the disintegrating column with rockets, he said. Dead and wounded soldiers were left on the snowy fields because there were too many of them to carry once the trucks were hit.

    "We stabilized them, applied tourniquets, gave them pain killers and tried to put them in a place with better cover," Mr. Sardaryen said of the wounded. Later, a Ukrainian unit from outside the encirclement drove in to try to retrieve the wounded, he said.

    Mr. Sardaryen said he ran on foot for the final four miles or so. Many of the soldiers who made it out also did so on foot, though some trucks made it all the way through, he said.

    Oleksandr I. Bogunov, an army private, said the order came to carry only what would be useful for the fight on the way out, and leave all other ammunition and weaponry behind.

    Porco Rosso
    1 hour ago
    Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power and who are nowadays literally masters of life...

    Mr. Poroshenko's order came after the separatists boasted of controlling the town on Tuesday, and after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia suggested at a news conference in Hungary that Ukraine should accept its defeat at Debaltseve by the separatist forces, whom he described as "underdogs." Russia is widely believed to be actively supporting the separatists.

    Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian national security and defense council, confirmed the retreat from Debaltseve on at a briefing Wednesday afternoon in Kiev, the capital. He said the pullout was nearly completed.

    Porco Rosso, Chicago 1 hour ago

    Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power and who are nowadays literally masters of life and death in the rest of the Ukraine than of the separatists in the east. Next thing to expect, will be upraise of the Ukrainians against the Right Sector fascists that currently control army and police and the rest of Kiev Junta oligarchs that have been hoping to rip off EU or US budgets by perpetuating this war that except DC neocons nobody wants.

    Maiklas, Lithuania 1 hour ago

    How could the Minsk agreement have neglected to specify in detail what to do about the pocket of Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve? Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko, and Putin need to meet again, but this time with representatives also from the DPR and the Right Sector.

    In any case, never forget that this started as an illegal coup of a democratic government, facilitated by neocons McCain, Nuland, and Obama.

    Wendell Murray, Kennett Square PA USA 1 hour ago

    No surprise. The Ukrainian army conscripts have no desire on average to be killed or to kill their fellow Ukrainians. The locals are fighting for their lives. Forget the nonsensical "Russian-backed separatists" moniker applied to the locals in USA and western European mainstream media outlets.

    They are local citizens fighting the fascist government in Kiev that overthrew - with prior USA governmental connivance and immediate post-coup support - the elected government a year ago. The propaganda on all this from the NYTimes and other theoretically neutral media outlets, not to mention the onslaught of disgusting nonsense from the USA government and its factota in so-called "think tanks is reprehensible.

    Tony Borrelli, Suburban Philly 2 hours ago

    It's rapidly becoming time for the USA (and the supportive US Media) to acknowledge that the USA/UK/EU agenda was behind the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, that the new government is a right wing tainted oligarchy, and that the resolve of the Russians is to NOT allow this faction to continue to surround them. In many ways the USA behaves like a doctor who refuses to acknowledge that his treatment failed and the patient is dying. We have had many adventures in Latin America, Europe and the Middle East where our tactics to create a sphere of influence have succeeded. This, like Cuba, is not going to be one of them. The Soviet Union is dead. The resolve of the Russian people who lost 20 million people defending the Motherland is not. This is where the European populace is going to tell their governments "enough of tweaking Russia's nose on behalf of the USA & UK".

    mervyn, nyc 1 hour ago

    You got be kidding me. This is the exact attitude to get us into the bind. The State Department was using thugs from Kiev to overthrow the government, and pushed Rebels to the boarder until last fall. The rebels then regrouped and came back with Russian armors. Live to fight another day? There will be no other days. If Putin uses full force of Russian Army like in Georgia, he can take Kiev in 2 weeks.

    NYReader, NY 2 hours ago

    How come every single place US and the allies get involved in becomes a terrible mess? You name it: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, Yemen, etc. One failure and one miscalculation after another. And please don't pass this off as George Bush, as Obama is now a war president also.

    The United States has refused to recognize Russia's traditional interests in Ukraine. Apparently there is the Monroe Doctrine to protect our interests in the Western Hampshire, but Russia gets the same old cold war policy of a "ring of steel". We have recruited Nato membership among the former Eastern Block, tried to surround Russia with missiles, and shamelessly interfered with Ukrainian domestic politics - all of them failures.

    The mess that the neocons have created in Ukraine is splitting that country apart and may lead to a global confrontation. President Obama should resist the call for arming the coup leaders in Kiev and should join Germany and France for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine that will bring peace to the country and to Europe. The warmongers should be told to calm down or volunteer to go and fight as partisans. They should leave the rest of America alone.

    Varenik, Boston 2 hours ago

    Maybe it would not end up like this if Poroshenko had not thrown the neo-nazi brigades against the mostly, ethnically, Russians protesting the coup in Kiev which in itself was an insult to those who grew up with memories of what was done to them during WWII. The real memories, not the hazy western interpretations where US had saved the day. The US media kept almost complete silence about the bombardment of Donetsk with scores of civilians dying in process, same way nobody is reminding Americans how this was US orchestrated and financed coup, and the same way everybody is keeping mum on the huge neo-nazi undercurrent in Ukraine. One is left to wonder as to where Kerry's idealism has gone...

    Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 10 hours ago

    There are enough sour grapes on this page to go around.

    Maidan understood, before taking over, that the people of SE Ukraine were not on board. The US, not understanding that some people do not necessarily view our "free enterprise/market system" as the greatest thing since sliced bread, was convinced that the southeast would "reluctantly go along"..

    (That's just one more example how our 'experts' don't have the faintest clue.)

    How Porochenko thought he could resolve things by simply bombing a sizable minority, to come around, was ham-fisted, if not, outright criminal.

    David, Chicago 11 hours ago

    The Minsk agreement had the fatal flaw that its negotiation excluded one of the two sides in Ukraine's civil war. By excluding the separatist rebels, the negotiators were able to gloss over the key point of whether Debaltseve was located in rebel-controlled territory or government-controlled territory. This may seem like a trivial point, but the accord called for both sides to withdraw behind their front lines. How is this possible if one of the sides has forces implanted in a besieged pocket deep within territory controlled by the other side? The separatist rebels reasonably asserted that the Ukrainian troops garrisoned in Debaltseve should withdrawn to behind the front line of territory controlled by the Ukrainian army.

    The Ukrainian army, urged on by its Western allies, insisted on not giving up this strategically important salient in the enemy's territory. Russia's much maligned president insisted on this rather obvious sticking point, this anomaly that the accord didn't address, but in the end he capitulated to the rest and allowed the point to remain unresolved.

    Minsk was a textbook example of how not to negotiate a truce. It made no logical sense and practically guaranteed continued fighting for control of Debaltseve. On the positive side, now that Ukrainian troops have been defeated there, the other front lines between the two sides appear to be recognized by both sides and therefore are relatively quiet.

    So not all hope is lost for the truce.

    Dan Elson, London 9 hours ago

    I grew up in Europe during the coldest period of the "cold war" living in fear of Russian (or Soviet) aggression which was very real at the time.

    Reading the papers today though I am not entirely convinced that Putin is the new "Hitler" and can only "be put in his place" through military force at any cost as many suggest. Russia is a dwarf compared to America in terms of military power and presence abroad. Putin has also previously showed his good will to collaborate not in the least by finally paying back to the West Russia's entire war loans 2006.

    In this conflict I can understand that Russia wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO in the same way as America would not have wanted Canada to join the Warsaw Pact in the 80's but naturally I don't sympathise with their methods for achieving this goal. It would be ill advised though to believe that there is a military solution to the problem.

    Thanks to Stalin's madness with famine and deportations Ukraine today is one of the most complex places to be found. Politics span from extreme Fascism to old Communism with nearly 20% of the population being Russian. Instead of trying to govern something like that they should just divide the country peacefully like Czechoslovakia did without bringing NATO into the equation.

    jdd, New York, NY 11 hours ago

    There was no rebel offensive, they simply held their ground. At Minsk, Putin tried to warn Poroshenko that his forces were surrounded and should surrender, but he wanted none of that. He should have listened to that advice as now the survivors and the Nazi battalions ("Right Sector") are talking coup.

    S.D. Keith, Birmingham, AL 9 hours ago

    And so Putin incrementally again decreases the footprint of Western hegemony. Make no mistake. Ukraine is a proxy for the ages-old power struggle between Eastern and Western Europe. The West seemed ascendant, until recently. Now Putin appears to have poked and prodded until he discovered the West's latent weakness--after sixty years of relative peace, it can't stomach the idea of another Continental bloodbath. Those that won't fight always lose to those that will.

    The West, including of course Western Europe's overseer and protector, the US, has very few options short of deploying ground forces to help Ukraine, and Putin knows it won't deploy ground forces to help Ukraine. So the Russian Empire will reconstitute that portion of the Soviet Union lost in the Cold War.

    The only question is who's next?

    Olga, Brooklyn 10 hours ago

    There was indeed a violation of Minsk agreements in Debaltsevo: however it was from Ukranian side, who for several days delayed the cease-fire and removal of the troops/heavy weaponry. Debaltsevo is part of rebel-controlled zone according to Minsk agreement, and there is no way the 'rebels' can cease fire while being under attach and while agreements are violated. The twisted interpretation of the of the situation by Ukraine and the west is to be expected.

    It is unfortunate that the real leader emerging in the ukraine is Zakharchenko, while Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, etc continue to play games and discredit themselves. Understandable, right now Urkaine has a weaker hand, and bidding for time (and money) is useful for it -- but the continues propaganda and falsification of events are becoming a constant there.

    Nowhere in NYtimes does one read about misrepresentation of history, that is recently very popular in the Ukraine; about severe restrictions on freedom of speech and information (as russian news sources are banned, as russian journalists are not allowed in the Ukraine) -- if this were happening in other 'good' european countries or, g. forbid, Russia, it would an outrage.

    George, Germany 9 hours ago

    Gotta love the Americans. Their answer to everything is more war, more weapons. You people will not be satisfied until there are rivers of blood in Ukraine.

    Putin will never back down. If he does he will be no longer Russian president. Get this in your heads.

    dogsecrets, GA 10 hours ago

    Good just give the Russian what they want a land bridge to Crimea

    This war did not have to happen the Stupid European and American thinking that Russian would stand by while Ukraine join the EU, just look at how we acted when Cuba was getting close to Russia and we still treat Cuba like crap 50 years later, Wake up Ukraine and Ukrainian people are not worth fighting for.

    R36, New York 6 hours ago

    I do blame Obama because he has allowed the situation to get out of hand. He could have said,

    "Just as we Americans were fighting for our freedom from the British, the rebels in east Ukraine are fighting for their freedom from Poroshenko and his regime in Kiev. Just as France helped us against the British, Russia is helping the rebels against Kiev.

    "It is foolish to risk world war to prevent the people from the Donblass to have their freedom."

    He could have said that and pressured Poroshenko to allow autonomy or federalization. Then we could have had peace and the 8000 Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve would still be alive.

    Before he went to Minsk, Poroshenko said explicitly that he was not interested in compromise and he rejected federalization.

    He has reaped what he sowed. And Ukraine has reaped what America sowed.

    Phil, Brentwood 7 hours ago

    Have ANY revolutions since the "Arab Spring" turned out well? Egypt is no better off, Syria is a killing field and Libya is a catastrophe. Sadly, Ukraine is following this pattern. The overthrow of their elected president has led to bloodshed and loss of control of the eastern portion of their country. Lesson: before you jump in a dark hole, figure out what's at the bottom.

    Under the circumstances, the escape of the Ukrainian troops from Debaltseve is the best outcome possible. It is considerably better than having them surrender.

    [Feb 17, 2015] The analogy between Yugoslavia and the Ukraine by Stephen Karganović

    Feb 15, 2015 | Czech Free Press
    Russian experts analyzed in detail the similarities in the methods and strategies used by the western coalition in connection with the Ukrainian crisis that has spawned and has exacerbated into brutal civil war. The same actors used those strategies developed in the 90's create the fertile soil for a brutal civil war which resulted in the destruction of the former Yugoslavia, are The reasons for such in-depth research are legion. First of all, if your not very imaginative or too arrogant enemy repeatedly acts according to the same template, knowing it provides you with a significant strategic advantage. It allows you to some extent to predict his actions and propose effective countermeasures.

    Although chutzpa of western strategists undoubtedly allow to counter their schemes more effectively, however, it is very important carefully analyze the key similarities and differences in two different situation so that you are not fighting the last war. Here are key elements of the color revolution template:

    1. The ethnic and religious fragmentation. The starting point of any color revolution is Identification of the usable social tensions and their systematic aggravation so that that at the end they can serve as a detonator of the planned crisis. This means mutual divide constitutive of the community, with an emphasis on what sets them apart, and at the same time reducing the weight of what they have in common.

      In Yugoslavia this strategy began be carried out long before the visible signs of the crisis, forming of new ethnic identities (Muslim, Montenegrin and Macedonian) was financed and supported as well as separatist aspirations were systematically encouragement and refined in the context of the existing ones (especially among the Croats and Slovenians). The Ukrainian identity is also an artificial construction, which is defined not positively, but primarily in a hate of all Russians, as a militant negation of all Russian culture and language. In Ukraine, as before, in Yugoslavia, existing religious cleft between the Catholics and the Orthodox part of the country was also successfully used to increase, deepen and sharpen the existing animosity.

    2. Deceptive by promise higher standard of living and creation of various material temptations to support the politically desired behavior.

      In the former Yugoslavia, where there was by the end of the 80. years of a decent standard of living, has been used in the prospects for an even better life, which would have followed the dissolution of the socialist state, as a bait to encourage separatist tendencies. Yugoslavia Catholic west was promised to increase the well-being to the level of Germany, when they decide to separate and commit to the "civilizational choice" (nearly identical phrase was used in the context of Ukraine) in favor of the integration with EU. Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo were promised great benefit from close connection to the rich Islamic countries. In Ukraine the EuroMaidan events were triggered by the illusion of rapid inclusion into the European union as associated ability to travel to the Western countries without visa and dramatic raise of standard of living.

      The majority of the population in western and central Ukraine, who have responded positively to these fake prospects of improving their standard of living and totally failed to realize gravity of the real economic and social transition, and more importantly, didn't realize the existence of the strong "no new members" trend in the EU. As a result they were forced to act on the basis of completely unfounded assumptions.

    3. Control of MSM in the target countries for the purpose of influencing the perception and behavior of the masses.

      The penetration of western influences in the media space in the former Yugoslavia, the pioneer of which was Soros, started immediately as soon as the political liberalization at the end of the 80th allow it. From the early 90's. years, when the conflict was the feeded mainly from abroad and did not yet became self sustained, a big part of the local media in all of the Yugoslav republics fall under the direct control of the western owners. A similar transfer of MSM into western hands occurred in Ukraine during the last two decades, where before EuroMaidan all the major MSM including TV channels were under the firm control of the controlled by the west oligarchs such as Poroshenko and kolomyski. all of them simultaneously Promoted the almost uniform and factually incorrect narrative about the benefits that would come from a political alliance EU and NATO and the EU, and total alienation from Russia.

    4. As in Ukraine, as in Yugoslavia, there was a certain core of the population, which proved to be resistant to brainwashing and continues to hold its own narrative. It was politically marginalized.

      While those people Radically reject these false ideas, which were designed to guarantee the acceptance of the new political arrangement under the iron heel of the West. In Ukraine, it was the Russian speaking east, in Yugoslavia the Serbs.

      The rejection of these groups to accept peacefully the loss of their own cultural identity and political autonomy has led in both cases to conflicts. A clear answer is required whether the armed conflict (although he was in principle predictable) also the preplanned and intended consequence of the processes that have been put into operation.

      In the case of Ukraine we can be reasonably doubtful, because of the apparent intention of the new Kiev junta after regime change was to include the country to NATO and the EU under the guidance of a vassal government in Kiev and this goal does not include the political disintegration of the country. EU wanted to eat the whole peace, as a single country.

      In the case of Yugoslavia, it can be argued that the conflict leading in the Serbian military defeat was clearly part of the plan. It is possible, however, that was originally expected that the campaign will be much faster and more successful. As it turned out, by the fact that the instigators of the Yugoslav crisis reviews are written by free rein to their Croatian and Muslim protecting, perhaps inadvertently, created a clear existential threat to the Serbs, who were scattered throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia, which greatly cemented their resistance and prolong the conflict longer than originally expected.

      In addition, it could lead to further unintentional result: a serious challenge to the Yeltsin's alliance with the West (although Russia played a role of Western vassal in this case). It has come to a critical stage in the time of the Kosovo war. The result was the rise of Putin and his political vision as a response to the war.

      Whether it was the original intention of the Ukraine anything (was probably only about the direction of cultural fragmentation while maintaining the overall political integrity of the country, albeit with a much more reliable western component, which would put to the untrusted east of the country into submission), it seems that failed as soon as it was when Kiev junta used brute force. As pointed out by informed analysts, power compromise between Kiev and Russian speaking east, which was possible two or three months ago [the article was written in September 2014, nb], is no longer possible because of the suffering and destruction Kiev junta has caused. The situation is evolving rapidly, while the regions that are culturally focused mainly on Russia, more and more refuse to have anything to do with Kiev, irrespective of the details of the proposed arrangement, if any. In this sense, today in Ukraine are getting a strong analogy with the spirit of the resistance, which was typical for Bosnian and Croatian Serbs during the Yugoslav conflict.

      One can imagine that if the West backed junta in both of the cases from the beginning took a more subtle and a more flexible attitude towards the Serbian and the Russian population, whose political role they want to diminish, it could proceed much more effectively, and might even prevent the radicalization of the opposition. And could it be truly successful, because in both cases, it was junta not the rebels, who, at least initially, intend to resort to violence.

    5. The west uses the most despicable social strata and dirty methods to achieve their goals. there are a number of documents that can shed light on the diabolic pact of the West with Iran (Iran-Contra) and other usage of more or less fundamentalist Islamic actors in order to strengthen the local Muslim forces in Bosnia, which was in line with the interests of NATO and the EU and the fight for control of the whole country.

      The participation of certain elements of the European far right in the war on the side of the right-center regime in Croatia was encouraged. A similar pattern can be observed in the Middle east, where the radical Islamic faction become a means to undermine the secular regimes, which were regarded as hostile to the West.

      In Ukraine there was a contract with the devil clearly included some of the most egregious of the local fascist forces, literally remnants and direct ascendants of forces that collaborated with Nazi during WW2. Their task was to provide a storm troopers for seizing power, and stage the coup d'état after which the West supported oligarchs and politicians in Kiev took power consolidate pro western neoliberal government. It seems that in both in Yugoslavian the Ukrainian case the key idea was :

      "Now we are going to use them for the removal of our main opponent and them we will deal with neofascists later."

      The probability that monsters which the West created at some point can refuse to obey their Western masters, was not taken into consideration. The post-war spread of radical Islam in Bosnia, where it previously never existed, and the consolidation of a strong fascist groundswell in Croatia is enough proof of this effect. In terms of the Nazi-inspired movements and armed formations in Ukraine, it seems that there is no clear plan as for how to bring them back to obedience once a conflict is over and they, presumably, outlived their usefullness for the west.

      Those tools, which the West amorally used to achieve their objectives, sow the Dragon teeth of the long-term instability as there is a distinct tendency of such forces to get out of control of their creators and even turn against them as happened with radical Wahhabism Islam.

      For Russia, the Ukraine is a serious problems, as those Dragon teeth, which was sown opportunistically by West as a tool for interference , will bear bitter fruits. Undoubtedly, they will prevent integration of Ukraine into the "Russian world", even if we limit to most basic cooperation as understood by the current Russian politicians. In other words Ukraine lost all Russian market.

    6. Covert support of Western puppets, while publicly proclaiming the policy of non-interference, which in practice is demanded only from other parties.

      Another important similarity lies in the fact that in the case of both the crisis of the West has initiated an embargo on the importation of weapons and logistical support to the conflicting parties, but on a regular basis is skirted in favor of their local clients. Rich evidentiary material, which was accumulated after the end of the 90. years, leaves no doubt about the fact that the Bosnian Muslim and Croatian forces in Yugoslavia were supplied by the west with a huge amount of weapons and large amount of training.

      Russia is the target of the process of demonization for not only the military, but even humanitarian aid to rebel regions in Ukraine. Western patrons insist on an almost unlimited right to support their clients, as in Belgrade in the 90's years, and Moscow now have similar privileges denied. Their insistence on a "level playing field" - the cliché which was often used at the time of the Bosnian conflict, turned out not to be what was in fact: it was the naked hypocrisy.

    7. A significant difference: Moscow has a clearly defined political objectives. You could say that one of the main reasons for the failure of the Serbian resistance in Croatia and only partial success in Bosnia was the lack of a clear political vision of both in their own ranks, and in Belgrade, which supported them.

      The Russian analysis of this experience has played an important role in ensuring that Moscow and its allies try to avoid to get into the swamp of the civil war without a clear definition of their goals and means to achieve them. No doubt that president , Putin does not want to imitate Slobodan Milosevic, who delivered a brilliant television speech, which contained a crucial insight about the machinations of his western opponents, but his timing couldn't be worse - it was delivered a few days before his overthrow.

    It seems that the Balkan events led to a more sobering view on the USE and a lot of self-reflection of Russian politicians, and that has double effect. First of all, the Kosovo war and the bombing of Yugoslavia at the end of the 90. years clearly give rise to substantial upheaval that has contributed to the change of Russian leadership. As a result Vladimir Putin became Russian president and his vision now if dominant. However, the negative consequences of the tortuous policy of encouraging their protégés in Bosnia and Croatia, followed by Milosevic, have been for the Russians another huge lesson. This lies in the fact that if someone does not have a wider strategic vision and the ability to put it place, it is better to avoid such a risky and complex entanglements.

    Source: vineyardsaker.blogspot.cz, translation: Charles Hyka

    Taken from the www.kosovoonline.cz

    [Feb 17, 2015] Nuland attempts Kiev Version 2.0 in Skopje

    Feb 16, 2015 | strategic-culture.orgskopje.html

    After having initiated her well-planned Maidan Square uprising in Kiev in early 2014, triggering Europe's worst conflict in Ukraine since the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, recently attempted a Kiev-style putsch in Macedonia aimed at overthrowing that nation's democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski. It is a hallmark of neoconservatives like Nuland and her arch-neoconservative husband, the Brookings Institution's Robert Kagan, to disregard democratic elections if their candidates fail to win election. Although Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Macedonian Prime Minister Gruevski were elected in free and fair elections, by all international metrics and norms, their governments were not as pro-NATO and pro-U.S. enough for the liking of Nuland and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) cabalists that surround her husband.

    Nuland's tactics differed somewhat in her Ukrainian and Macedonian campaigns. Her signature challah bread offerings to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Square took the form of unsolicited offerings to the Macedonian press suggesting that Gruevksi was wiretapping as many as 20,000 Macedonians and that a videotape proving it was secretly made by Macedonia's George Soros-financed leader of the opposition, Zoran Zaev, in a meeting he had with Gruevski.

    Full text: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/02/16/nuland-attempts-kiev-version-2-skopje.html

    [Feb 15, 2015] Ron Paul: Ukraine Coup Planned By Nato And EU

    Ron Paul: "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out." Quote from comments: "That is where anyone who does not believe that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent mess Ukraine has become."
    Feb 15, 2015 | zerohedge.com

    As Ron Paul recently exclaimed, the war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. So we thought the followingg 90 seconds of 'pure Paul' would provide a refreshingly different perspective as he explains, "I'm not pro-Russia, I'm not pro-Putin, I'm pro-facts."

    "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out."

    As Ron Paul previously concluded:

    Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams.

    Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.

    ...

    The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it's in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.

    ekm1

    Where are the facts Mr Ron Paul?

    Ron Paul is making up stuff in order to sell products to disciples.

    Coup in Ukraine was staged by Putin via Yanukovych. Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.

    Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.

    What happened was the counter coup, which yes, was urged by USA and nato

    cigarEngineer

    EKM1, how is the air conditioning at US Misinformation Warfare Headquarters? Do you get paid weekly or bi-weekly? Then again, at $15/hr, who cares, right...

    Ignatius

    Lying for a living. Don't he know that politics pays better? Maybe he's just packin' his resume.

    Winston Churchill

    EKM just graduated to my do not bother to read comment list.

    Maybe PPT really stands for Piss Poor Trolls.

    Calmyourself

    British Battalion 77 peter puffers have arrived.. EKM, which barracks you out of? I am sure you will tell us next multiculturism is strengthing Britain..

    Jack Burton

    Winston, I don't know if you have noticed, but over the last few months the State Department Internet posters have moved away from ZH. Perhaps they consider us a lost cause. But some months back they were still very active here, posting sometimes dozens of State Department talking points, but winning no converts. As of late, they have withdrawn to troll more mainstream blogs and News Paper comments sections.

    The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one channel propaganda. Never before has media told so many demonstrable lies in so short a time. The transparent lies have begun to catch many people's attention. The script they read from is not at all clever or well thought out. The script is terribly transparent, and so easily proved to be lies.

    So, will this new war propaganda win? So far I say it's 75 yes, 25% no. So many Americans just lap up the lies without trying to get the real story. Fools have been

    TungstenBars

    "The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one channel propaganda."

    I agree 100% with this; more and more people are seeing the US state sponsored propaganda for what it is.

    In regards to "So, will this new war propaganda win?":

    I stated here before that the secondary objective of modern state sponsored propaganda in the west is to gain popular support, but the main objective is to send out the "offical accepted version of world events", meaning that it does not matter if 99% of Americans do not believe it. So long as America does not erupt in a civil war, what the state sponsored media says stands and nothing else matters and will be ignored. Anyone asking questions or causing trouble will be pointed to or judged based on that propaganda as if it was truth. Pretty much 1984.

    angel_of_joy

    He's from Toronto... the navel of the Universe (in their own opinion). Their view of the world is somewhat distorted, and "potted"...

    TungstenBars

    The state-sponsored anti-russian propaganda in Canada is in overdrive. Harper has gone full retard and traitor to appease to certain foreign interests.

    Most people don't believe the nonsense whatsoever. EKM, I don't get why he is so special as to actually believe it. He speaks for no-one.

    Jack Burton

    Canada just happened to be where the allies shipped the Ukrainian Nazis and SS veterans after World War II. The allies knew their strong anti communist and anti Russia bent, so figured to save as many as possible to form the useful agents they and their families now are. Harper is feeding those Western Ukrainian trolls and they in turn help ramp up public opinion into fever pitch.

    I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!

    Why does the west feed this war fever, and why the coup in the first place? War allows the public to be stripped of tax revenues, it allows national security to trump privacy and freedom, and it allows politicians to claim a patriotic mandate to rule us. Plus corporate profits and stocks are off the charts money makers.

    Spitzer

    This is true. They are scattered all over alberta and Sk. I met one recently that was bragging about cross burnings in Provost. Provost is a nazi ukranian KKK town

    Latina Lover

    Quoting Jack Burton:

    "I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!"

    I couldn't have said better myself. As a former grunt who saw some action when I was young and very stupid, any idiot advocating violence against others should put their money where their mouth is and lead by example.

    Instead we have this hypocrite drone army, spewing endless BS to induce others to die for their shabby causes, cowards hiding behind keyboards. To hell with all of them!

    schadenfreude

    http://www.kas.de/ukraine/en/publications/21063/

    This is from Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung a NOG from Germany. So this mght be propaganda or not. In fact there never were real elections Ukraine ever. Lawful was not one government there.

    giovanni_f

    Konrad-Adenauer-Siftung is anything but an unbiased organisation. Actually it is a transatlantic networking group in the business to spread neocon messages in Germany. The page you refer to does not contain ANY actual, proven issue but just the general out-of-the-air claim that the elections didn't meet demoratic standards.

    Try harder, Neocon troll.

    El Vaquero

    Are you claiming that Ron Paul was wrong when he said that we had a recording of the assistant US secretary of state and the US ambassador to Ukraine discussing who is going to take power in Ukraine BEFORE the coup in Ukraine?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg


    ekm1

    Nuland did the right thing. It prepared the counter coup against Putin's coup

    El Vaquero

    Yes, Nuland took part in starting a civil war that has killed innocent people. That is obviously the right thing. Civil war is good for the people, or didn't people realize that?

    JESUS! FUCK!

    EU-Ukraine-Russia trade deals are NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

    BlindMonkey

    so the Nazi Ukies could have gone about their protests by peaceful means but Nazis gonna Nazi and tortured, burned, raped and stole their merry way across the countryside. Even the Ukies have had enough of their shit and have tried to pull them back at various times just to see the Nazis flex and storm the buildings of their own gov.

    As I write this I am wondering what ahit are you trying to pull? You don't seem to be a satire artist like MDB. Paid troll? Maybe. I don't see how anyone can objectively read the news and come to the same conclusions as you.

    El Vaquero

    That is some seriously fucked up reasoning. The US did the right thing by kicking off something that was inevetable and accomplished nothing except putting the US and Russia closer to war, which, BTW would go nuclear. You call that the right thing?

    You're fucking nuts. This should be none of the US's fucking business. I'm sick of sending our soldiers over to die for somebody else's cause. Why don't you Eastern Europeans solve your own fucking problems?

    ekm1

    USA is now the business of world police. Becoming a soldier is the safest way of employment.

    World security is USA's export now. There is no other way, for now.

    Soldiers know very well they will end up in interventions, but they like the money and the thrill of it.

    Nobody forces young people to enroll. The money and the thrill entice them to

    El Vaquero

    So you want the USA to solve your problems? Being globo-cop is proving to be an unethical gig for the US, and should stop.

    And have you ever heard a US soldier talk about how they were defending the US in our interventionist wars? I have. They actually believe it. Young people don't know what they are signing up for, and often they fail to realize what they have done after they are finished.

    So, again, why can't you Eastern Euroopeans solve your own fucking problems? You know that the US is not going to be able to backstop you forever. What then?

    ekm1

    Yes. I've spoken with many. Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it

    El Vaquero

    Gee, that must explain the excessively high suicide rate amongst US vets.

    ThroxxOfVron

    "Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it "

    I believe it. Oh, the gory glory. Oh, the rush of being tough and exerting power.

    ...& dumb women love a douche with a paycheck in a tidy uniform.

    angel_of_joy

    That love generally stops suddenly when they come to suffer the consequences of their choice (i.e. the possibility of getting maimed or dying in combat).

    The military is a wonderful (state supported and encouraged) vehicle for crass freeloading, until a war happens. Then, a soldier's personal ROI becomes dramatically (even terminally, for many) NEGATIVE !

    The_Prisoner

    Course they do. They're sociopaths like you to whom only personal gain, even at the cost of murdering others whom just want to live their lives is justified.

    g speed

    A lot of these kids just do what their parents want them to do---very sad---kids come home with no legs and look at dad and ask why?

    green888

    Dispute resolution ? Kill someone is your only way- look at your films, entertainment; there is a bad guy and then the "good guy" kills him. It has all become part of your psyche, as ultimately any of your disputes has to be resolved in this way; but the resentment you leave behind has a price.

    If you complain about others, you should go home and conduct a self examination.

    RichardParker

    EKM1:

    You want to know what your masters think of the military?

    POS Kissinger actually told the truth for once when he explained how ""Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

    JustUsChickensHere

    Somebody seems to have hacked the ekm1 account. He was always sort of necon, but never this blatantly wacko before.

    El Vaquero

    He's Eastern European. I suspect that some deep cultural hatred of the Russians going back a century or 5 has something to do with it. I want nothing to do with that tribal mentality bullshit when it comes to a potential US-Russia confrontation because I don't want to see mushroom clouds over Kirtland AFB with my own eyes. Call me crazy for that.

    TheFourthStooge-ing

    He's Albanian, which makes him half Latvian, half Polack, and half Bulgoslovenakian.

    OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

    WTF you fascist, the world does not want or need American storm troopers telling them how to run their lives for the benefit of America. History is a story of lesser powers uniting to oppose tyranny and eventually winning, this will be no different. Get the fuck back in your cave deep in exceptionalist Anglo-American fantasy land and leave the rest of the world the fuck alone.

    reload

    @EKM

    'world security'

    Right: let's have a little stock take shall we of those recent lucky nations receiving the security export.

    • Iraq
    • Libya
    • Egypt
    • Yemen
    • Ukraine
    • Somalia

    Notice the trend? All places of great insecurity due to US led attempts to insert or maintain puppet client governments whose purpose is to loot their host countries.

    You used to make sense on some issues, even when you were needlessly cryptic you were thought provoking. Hell, you even called for oil to trade with a $40 handle even though your reasoning was off, it Has happened.

    You have lost the plot tonight.

    Libertarian777

    because... Putin wants to rule a basket case? that's why he started a civil war?

    I haven't heard any logical arguments for why Putin would want to take over the Ukraine. Next I'll hear he wants to take over Greece. For what purpose? Cos he wants their monuments? Or does he like their national debt and 30 hour workweek?

    The Russians are saying they are intervening to protect Russian people. The West claims Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union.

    On the other hand the west is trying to expand NATO up to Russia's border (think of it as a 'western union').

    So even if Putin wants to recreate the USSR, why is it 'bad' when he wants to do it, but 'OK' when the west wants to do it? What is the distinction? Let me guess... human rights? Well the USA with a population of 330 million has MORE people incarcerated than CHINA with 1.2 BILLION people. (4x). Where's the 'human rights'?

    How many countries has Russia invaded. I'll even give you Crimea, so Crimea and Georgia.. that's 2.

    How many countries has the USA invaded... Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia.

    I can't follow the logic.

    LocalBoy

    NATO / IMF controlling Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, is instant suicide for Russia.
    Their choice was give in or fight. War became inevitable when NATO expanded toward Russia -

    It is well known that Russia will not give up Sevastopol, will not give up Ukraine to a foreign military alliance.

    lasvegaspersona

    'Nuland did the right thing'...sure...unless you believe in that whole 'democracy' thingy.

    An elected government was overthrown in violent protests that it appears the US organized and aided.

    This was done because NATO was displeased that the Ukes were not willing to move closer to the EU.

    NATO has shamelessly disregarded the agreements made way back when Gorby was in charge. They have place missiles in Poland fer-cryin-out loud.

    I think if I were Putin (and Russia) I'd be worried.

    chinoslims

    That's a bingo!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5pESPQpXxE

    will ling

    ah, nuland, mccrazy, kristol, et al , are "just soft" war criminals.

    ebworthen

    Oh ekm 1, puhleease! Yanukovych was elected by the people of Ukraine.

    How is an elected leader ousted by pro a EU Maidan which is supported by: the EU, NATO, our State Department, and meddling U.S. Senators - a coup by Putin?

    What is it you are smoking to make you believe such a thing?

    El Vaquero

    Observable facts do not matter to the narrative. Most will not look at them anyway. Putin could be the most evil sonofabitch the world has ever seen, and that still would not justify our destabilizing Ukraine.

    Element

    You realize Ukraine was totally broke well before any of this? Deeply in debt, big bills to pay, pooched economy? That sound stable to you?

    The reason Yanukovych was trying to obtain an association with the EU at all was because Ukraine was so broke and desperate for a new sugar daddy.

    And Yanukovych definitely would have gone that way too, if the IMF had not tried to fuck Ukraine so badly that Yanukovych was forced to walk away as it was national financial suicide to accept the terms Legarde wanted to inflict.

    The real source of the instability was Ukraine's own mess.

    What came next was just the rush to get the best bits of the carcass.

    So who was doing, or rather had already done, the destabilizing of the country?

    El Vaquero

    Yes, Ukraine was a corrupt broke mess. Why the fuck were our politicians over there? Why were they acting as though they knew that "Yats" was going to be the new PM? Why the fuck was John Brennan over there? What fucking business is it of ours?

    Miffed Microbio...

    The time will end for us as Global Cop as it always has in history. This is assured. However, only after millions have died during the posturing. And those who have played this role have never risen to that status again.

    This country will pay, including the innocents who were against the whole thing in the first place. We just get to watch while others distract themselves with amusements and trinkets.

    It is not our business now nor ever was. Why Ron Paul wasnt elected just blows my mind. That was our last hope for redemption.

    Miffed

    chinoslims

    It's not global cop. It's global robbery.

    El Vaquero

    Haven't you been paying attention to policing in the US lately? Civil asset forefitures plus shooting people because they dared to turn their back on the police while holding a plastic spoon means that cops and robbers are often one in the same.

    TheFourthStooge-ing

    The term you're looking for is protection racket.

    Element

    Nicely said, I see you have no trouble coming to terms with it, must be trauma ward experience kicking in.

    Miffed Microbiologist

    I accept the reality of it but this is no means a personal relief of my own responcibilities as a participant nor is it an escape into futility of action. Yes, if omnipotent, I would end this fast but since I am woefully lacking in such power I must content myself to personal and local rebellion. I hope others will join me at some point but it is always unwise to count on others.

    Americans have become slothful and content in their status in the world. It is ending now but few truly perceive it being subtle at this stage. When one is unconcerned about the atrocities this country is perpetuating on its own citizens or those in other nations, be it overt attacks or political maneuvering, then ones humanity is lost. I am not sure if it can be truly recovered. We brand our leaders as psychopathic but we should examine our own hearts as well.

    Yes, the inward trauma ward is not very pleasant. ;-)

    Miffed

    Element

    You don't really need a lesson on how geopolitics is played do you? I'll give you credit and presume you don't. But you better start to get real about this ElV, it isn't going to go away via wishes and idealism.

    It is real, and it is ugly, and it is about survival, or else not, and you do have to accept that it's happening and face it as it is, not how you would wish it to be.

    And that's all the slack I'm ever cut you on this topic.

    El Vaquero

    Serious question: Do you support a war with Russia? Because that is a very real danger with the kind of geopolitics being played today.

    Element

    Of course not.

    That said, it appears one key Russian does support war with NATO, given actions speak louder than words. It won't take long to find out if Putin is effectively suicidal. I think he's certainly become erratic over the past year, and made unexpectedly bad choices and extraordinary mistakes. I've been amazed by how badly he's done. So if this goes pear-shaped his recent judgement and decision-making under pressure doesn't inspire confidence.

    There's a moderate to reasonably good chance we're stuffed.

    The_Prisoner

    That's very magnanimous of you.

    You must have patience with us peons. Not all of us went to Duntroon and had the honor of serving the Empire.

    Thanks again, milord.

    Calmyourself

    Yanukovych pivoted to Russia for a saving loan and then what happened when he did not take money from EU bankers to prolong their party, that's right Nuland showed up to kick his ass out.. Get with the everlasting gobstopper of debt program or get "destabilized"

    Volkodav

    Yanuk was only thief, not open murderer... He also Ukrainian, not outsider alien passport gang

    Hefar lesser heavy handed than the "Red" mafia now in Kiev..who prove themselves killers.

    schadenfreude

    With all the propaganda dished out to the people it's difficult to know who staged what. But at least there are some facts, where eyerybody can draw conclusions.

    • French, German and Polish foreign ministers negotiated a deal with Yanukovich to have elections in September 2014. In the evening after this deal people on Maidan Sq. got shot. This caused the putsch against the government.
    • So the trigger was the shooting on Maidan Sq. which was never really investigated.
    • All actions afterwards was reaction and counter-reaction by the involved parties.
    • Nulands phone call is fact as well. This is an evidence of US involvement. Whether they initiated the shootings or Yanukovichs people for me is not proven, but likely. Why should Yanukovich do this, a couple of hours after he signed a deal with EU?

    Chupacabra-322

    Let's also not forget Criminal Psychopath / Sociopath Nuland's 5 Billion Dollar Fascist investment

    Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs

    US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: "Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine's European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. " Nuland said the United States will continue to "promote Ukraine to the future it deserves."

    HowdyDoody

    Not to mention the repeated strange coincidence that the Nazi violence ramps up after visits from major US/CIA gov actors.

    geno-econ

    Nuland has admitted publicaly that State Dept has spent $ 5 Billion influencing Kiev regime change over last several years. Granted much of this was in form of encouraging ex-patriots here in States, propaganda directed towards Ukrainian citizens and aide money. Only people in government know how much was allocated for actual arms but everyone knows the activities of Neocons in Washington.

    The point is the US encourages regime change and recently has had a dismal record of failure and huge wasteful spending.

    Just look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Georgia, Yeman and now Ukraine. Ron Paul is correct.

    nailgunnin4you

    Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.

    I think coup d'état is a little strong here, which American talking head has you recycling this verbal diarrhoea? Only a war-mongering murrican would say establishing a better trade deal for your country is a coup d'état.

    Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.

    So, in your bubble, a country's leader can only establish trade deals/policies/legislature et cetera that he campaigned on, and anything else he did not take to a previous election is a coup d'état even if it is a simple trade deal benefitting the people?

    You're not this stupid, please stop.

    JustObserving
    Ron Paul: Ukraine Coup Planned By Nato And EU

    Of course. Maidan terrorists were trained months before in Poland:

    Ukraine: Poland trained putchists two months in advance

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article183373.html

    And now USA and Ukraine are destroying the new ceasefire:

    US and Ukrainian officials seek to torpedo Minsk cease-fire agreement

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/14/ukra-f14.html

    q99x2

    If the NWO is successful in killing Ukranian's it won't be long before they start killing Americans. Globalists are traitors against all nations.

    Element

    Great sentiments and rhetoric, not much else, as what he's calling for is the end of US involvement in NATO. OK, what then?

    US forces have to leave Europe ... completely, the lot. But Europe is most definitely not going to butt-out of the changing of borders in Ukraine using Russian force and support.

    He seems to want to ignore that Russia is in fact attacking Ukraine, has stolen its navy, has taken Crimea, and has tried to carve off more and more of Eastern Ukraine, even in the past couple of days.

    "I'm pro-facts."

    OK, but are you also prepared to accept the implications and imperatives that those facts, Ron?

    SMC

    OK, what then?

    PEACE

    Element

    Peace since WWII involved the "balance of terror" of MAD. It is a BALANCE of forces and strategy and position.

    Change the balance radically and the strategic game changes radically, i.e. not-peace. And it happens in multiple locations.

    rejected

    Fact: Crimea was 'gifted' to Ukraine in the 1950's by crazy Khrushchev without a plebiscite.

    Fact: Crimea voted for reunification when given the chance.

    Fact: Ukraine only owned the Sevastopol Navel base by the graciousness of Russia.Russia even paid for a lease.

    Fact: The Ukrainian Navy was allowed to exit Sevastopol after the reunification vote. Why would Russia want their junk?

    Fact: Sevastopol would never have been given up by Russia regardless of the reunification vote just as the USSA refuses to leave Guantanamo.

    Fact: Russia has given Ukraine control of all the borders including the break away provinces with the new Minsk agreement.

    Fact: You are full of shit.

    Element

    Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.

    Fact: Crimea being Ukrainian territory is recognized by the overwhelming majority of countries on Earth.

    Deal with it.

    angel_of_joy

    UN does not recognize the Kosovo entity, but it still exists. UN din't sanction the entire war against Serbia, but it still took place.

    Reality is different than UN's view of the world, and the realities on the ground in Ukraine are changing as we speak. Deal with it !

    rejected

    Fact: The UN is not a sovereign state.

    Fact: The UN is funded mainly by the U.S

    Fact: The UN has no authority to recognize any state.

    Fact: The UN 'supposedly' supports self determination by it's very charter.

    Fact: You are still full of shit.

    Element

    Chancellor Merkel: (a few days ago)
    "One particular priority was given to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia this morning. We stand up for the same principles of inviolability of territorial integrity. For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if we give up this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of Europe that we've been able to achieve. This is not just any old point, it's an essential, a crucial point, and we have to stand by it. And Russia has violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine in two respects: in Crimea, and also in Donetsk and Luhansk.

    So we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of a mediator, but we also stand up for the interests of the European peaceful order. And this is what the French President and I have been trying to do over the past few days. We're going to continue those efforts.

    And I'm very grateful that throughout the Ukraine crisis, we have been in very, very close contact with the United States of America and Europe on sanctions, on diplomatic initiatives. And this is going to be continued. And I think that's, indeed, one of the most important messages we can send to Russia, and need to send to Russia.

    We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks. These days we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. I've always said I don't see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. ..."

    i.e. Europe doesn't want the US to leave, and Washington does not want the US to leave either.

    SO THE USA IS NOT LEAVING EUROPE

    Get it?

    Both consider this to be in their vital interests.

    So these also are the facts of the situation, and you can try to ignore these facts, because you do not like them, you do not like the ugliness of geopolitics, but that changes nothing about geopolitics.

    All I'm doing here is pointing that out.

    So cry a river of tears if you think it changes anything, or that if merely I changed my mind, it would make you less pissy and aggrieved.

    But those facts of this situation, will remain.

    That's where Ron Paul, and people like you, have your heads rammed firmly up your butts, screaming to mother to make it all go away.

    And I understand (perfectly) why you would want the world to be different than it is, but it simply isn't going to be.

    Now seriously, grow up and try to cope with that, rhetorical fantasies don't help.

    Volkodav

    bored. Chancellor Merkel sang differently about Kosovo.

    Victory_Garden

    "Both consider this to be in their vital interests."

    Good sir, who's interests? Certainly you do not refer to the average American.

    From this heart, how does the extreme waste of manpower and money and MIC profit pumping for moar bankster profits become a "vital interest" to we, the average Americans? How is that "in their vital interest" to the rest of the world? All the warmongering for profits, world domination, and population elimination is NOT interesting, or in the better "interests" of America and the world's people at all.

    How can you justify the out right blatant murder of innocents, women, and children for the moneygod? Whose really vitally interested in that? Constant never ending warmongering in foreign lands is NOT the choice of real truth following Americans at all, nor in their best interests. It is ONLY for evil zionist/luciferian/sataninc interests and NO covering up that FACT will change this truth.

    Darn, never thought about disagree with you before, for your truth really lit the Way for many here once ago.

    From this perspective, if they were to go after the evil bankster empire of chaotic dust in Europe, THAT would be of "vital interest" to the freedom loving American people. In fact, the world would rejoice if ALL these evil things were rounded up and placed on an island in the middle of the ocean to do what they will. Good riddance say we all! War is of NO vital interest to anyone. It just does not work.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGpwKQo5_Z0

    Ventnor

    Element,

    Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours. He will play his long game and he will prevail.

    It could mean the end of your beloved NATO, which will have no viable purpose if it cannot dragoon Ukraine into its ranks so as to encircle and ultimately destroy Russia.

    It could also mean the end of the the EU, but that appears to be coming apart at the seams anyway.

    You say Europe is dead keen on having the US remain in Europe. That's true of the elite -- largely because Paris and Berlin are terrified of the vacuum that would be created by US withdrawal. Paris knows Germany would have the whip hand; Germany is afraid of being alone at the top.

    Nevertheless, our murderous and immoral Ukraine policy is earning us lots of new enemies among European populations. We are playing with fire. Not sure if we don't know that, or just don't care.

    Element

    Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours.

    • I am not taking a side.
    • I am totally non-partisan.
    • I am pointing out what is going to happen.
    • Not what people want to happen.
    • I am pointing it out to >>95% partisans. You are one of them.

    Partisans usually do not like how things will develop to be stated plainly, as it often goes against the way they want things to develop.

    So partisans then shoot the messenger, rather than take the warning, on its face value.

    Miffed Microbiologist

    Element, I happen to agree with you though it does bother me personally. Sometimes hard facts are unpleasant to truly face and hopes of alternative choices are seductive though not likely relevant in these games of power.

    My only grief is this is being played with a participant that is rotting from within. Given up its manufacturing base. Economically in the crapper and showering many with money just to live day to day. An aging sick population. We see this farce play out everyday. We are being drained dry internally and will soon be unable to fill this role losing our strong foundation. And when it ends, another will assume the role as it always has been throughout history. Can you blame us for wanting an end to this?

    As a small player in this, one who will be likely swept away when the power shifts, I can only watch it unfold. And this gives me no pleasure to admit such a thing.

    Miffed

    YHC-FTSE

    Mrs.M, if you examine his post it's quite easy to see that he is suffering from a condition called, "Fatalism".

    "Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine stressing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate. Fatalism generally refers to any of the following ideas: The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do."

    His argument that the convolutions of geopolitics are a natural result of survival and therefore beyond the scope of our control or wishful thinking is both wrong and indifferent to the real crimes being committed in our name.

    • We know who is involved in supporting the neo-nazis and zionists in Ukraine: Victoria Nuland of the US State Dept.
    • We know thousands of innocent people have died as a result. We know wholesale looting is taking place by the Israeli oligarchs.
    • We know, from their own words, from the mouth of the current Ukrainian Prime Minister that those who oppose the coup are being threatened with being burnt alive - in fact many Russian language speaking Ukrainians in Odessa and Mariupol have actually been murdered in this way.

    What else could they do but fight against the nutjobs in Kiev and ask for help from Russia? Be burnt alive or become refugees?

    Yet to brush all this aside with glib remarks about geopolitics and national survival with quite insane philosophies on death lacking in any depth of analysis or empathy for the victims of these horrendous crimes is, I think, quite revolting. Yes, control of our fate is an illusion, but we are also the cumulative sum of all of our decisions.

    So, Mrs.M, you keep your compassion alive. Your empathy and reason do you credit in a world full of cold sociopaths. Without such sweet and bitter experiences to guide our moral values in life, life would be very dull and useless indeed.

    YHC-FTSE

    "I am not taking a side.
    I am totally non-partisan."

    For a guy who believes he is non-partisan you sure do have a LOT to say about it for one side.

    "I am pointing out what is going to happen."

    For a guy who thinks he is a realist or pragmatist, you sure are delusional about being able to tell what is going to happen. Newsflash: NOBODY knows the future. Not even you.

    What's wrong with you? There's nothing coherent in your "message" at all - perhaps that's why you're getting junked.

    angel_of_joy

    Americans shouldn't leave, but stay there and keep paying for (and subsidizing with manpower and equipment) the European "security".

    That would be a sure way toward self-destruction of contemporary US, which is already practically bankrupt (and not only from a moral point of view...).

    LocalBoy

    Ukraine's government was functioning under a Constitution. Within the Constitution was allowances for Crimea to remain autonomous. The Ukrainian Constitution was trashed when the overthrow occurred allowing Crimea to vote for independence.

    How can you argue rule of law when the existing government is outside the rule of law while Crimea is within the law ?

    Good point about stealing your Navy - and the fact is there is very little that CAN be done about it. Russia took it and nothing will change that. Destroying Russia to give Crimea back to an illegitimate government will not fly - its all about price discovery. What price CAN be forced on Russia........so far very little.

    What price has the US already paid

    Red Lenin

    Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.

    Fact: Yugoslavia was recognized by the UN as a sovereign country. It no longer exists.

    Volkodav

    UN is worthless except for fill pockets with US taxpayer $.

    same as your opinion:

    • Crimea seceded
    • Crimea is peaceful
    • Crimea is free

    The_Prisoner

    Now you're fronting. Next thing you'll say Israel is legitimate

    Urban Roman

    "... and has tried to carve off more and more .."

    Really? The Russian Army has been fighting a random bunch of warmed-over nazi skinheads for almost a whole year, and can't manage to take a couple of oblasts west of the Don?

    Whatchoo smokin' over dere? Login or register to post comments

    angel_of_joy

    There was no Ukraine prior to 1991. Contemporary Ukraine is an artificially induced state, created in a moment of maximum weakness of the Russian state. As a result, it has no future, and no amount of US propping will change the facts on the ground. Crimea is populated by Russians in vast majority, who decided they don't want to be rulled by Kiev after the US led coup. More so, the Ukrainian "fleet" was built during USSR so it represents a Russian asset too. Your narrative is as dumb as this entire war... which will end badly for US.

    Volkodav

    Ukraine has never been a sovereign nation.

    Victory_Garden

    Darn Element, what happened to you?

    In the past, you were so spot on about all the fuckyoushima tragedy and offered much light for many who listened intently to your truth. We are grateful for all that light.

    Now, it seems as if you have been co-opted, or banned and someone else is using your handle to put out the same trash the organized criminal lame stream media propagandists are putting out for public consumption. It's ONLY regurgitation of the filthiest yukkity-muck ever.

    We all miss the truth bearing Element and wonder, are you really another dis-informationist? It would be a shame and big loss to find this out, as your great intelligence is needed to combat the evil that has run rampant over the planet for centuries. Is it money or love you quest after, dear One?

    Ask, would you rather have a Ron Paul for president, or the evil illegal usurping alien bushonian bankster puppet we have now? Truly, the puppet soterobama is absolutely the most vile evil and destructive worst president America has ever had.. History will reflect this fact. We may not see another righteous president ever again in America's coming to an end history. Sad to ponder that, eh!

    WE WANT GOD BACK IN AMERICA NOW!

    (Side-swiping truth, God is Love. Period!)

    new game

    hmmm, then silence...

    schadenfreude

    You are correct. All germans I spoke to said, that they should leave Russia with Crimea and the Donbass region.

    You are incorrect, that Ukraine is Russia. It is not. After WWII Stalin made the deal that he could enlarge Russia to the West. So he deported the polish to what was once Germany. This artificial enlargement divides Ukraine and is a rated break point that runs through the country. So both sides have a legitimate claim.

    Victory_Garden

    The latest rant on the GW story.

    Ron Paul WAS America's last chance to remain free from the horridness of the banksteronian evil that runs rampant over the land like diarrhea running out of a goose's arse.

    HowdyDoody

    NATO was created to force the USSR to target two widely separated entities (Europe and continental US) before the time of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This was to keep the USSR focused on Europe. In any envisioned war, Europe and USSR would be destroyed or severely weakened, strengthening the US position.

    steelhead23

    There is but one thing in all of this that is perfectly clear to me. The situation is quite confusing, lying is rampant, and unnecessarily provoking the Russian Bear is about the most dangerous thing anyone could do.

    My preference for U.S. policy is neither isolationism nor militarism. It's diplomacy. Further, the U.S. should abandon its use of economic sanctions against the Bear for his annexation of Crimea because Putin would never leave Crimea, meaning this economic cattle prod will continue to annoy the Bear.

    Instead, the U.S. and NATO should be willing to trade some form of recognition of Russian presence in Crimea for ending the war in eastern Ukraine. I would also hope that Kiev and Washington would be willing to see an autonomous region, perhaps more aligned with Moscow than Kiev and agreement not to place NATO troops or materiel in Ukraine.

    But of course, none of this is likely - everyone is lying and the trust needed for real diplomacy is nil.

    Herdee

    I guess that the CIA Director,Stephen Harper, Victoria Wench Nuland were only in Ukraine for a nice vacation?

    It shows anyone with a grade 2 education how the world still works.

    Bunga Bunga

    We couped some folks.

    655321

    RP gives me the impression he a form of controlled opposition, almost like a pressure release valve, giving people false hope and at same giving people false conclusions on key issues such as 9/11.

    Savyindallas

    You can't take on too many issues. Paul knows 911 was an inside job. His supporters know. Someday he will go public. I don't agree with the way he handles this, just as I don't like the politics of rand paul on many issues. TPTB would have loved RP to come out as a Truther - they would have detroyed him and his credibility as the sheeple just have no idea what is really going on.

    LeftyGoldblatt

    LiveLeak.com

    Ross Kemp Extreme World. Ukraine

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98d_1423931054

    Berspankme

    Watched it. The nazi's are taking over west ukraine. Porkoshenko better watch his back.

    HowdyDoody

    Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far right Pravy Sektor group (financed by Kolomoisky) has brought together the remnants of the Nazi volunteer battalions as one entity, under his control. He has also stated that they (again) will not comply with the ceasefire. These will be the shock troops in the next stage of this saga.

    Victory_Garden

    Yup!

    (use subtitles)

    TeaClipper

    This is how they do business in Ukraine parliament, whichever government is in

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9c7HbeKpeM

    gcjohns1971

    If the US were isolationist, a lot of Dead Ukrainians would likely be alive right now.

    With that said, there are plenty of intrigues to go around even the US were somehow frozen.

    There are many powerful entities who have their fingers in the Ukraine. Not the least of them are the Ukrainians themselves, both Eastern and Western variety.

    Neither the West's position, that everyone should account all Ukrainians both East and West to be homogenous, nor the East's position, that the East Ukraine is Russia, and the West Ukraine is an illegitimate province of Poland or LIthuania and therefore unworthy of self rule, is workable.

    Both of those positions lead to dead ends. The Ukrainians are Ukrainians because they are the descendants of those who followed the Kiev 'Rus' (Russians). The Russians are those who followed the Prince of Moscow. All of Russia and part of Ukraine was conquered by the Mongols. The part not conquered are the West Ukrainians. The part conquered are the East Ukrainians...plus many soviet era Russian imports.

    Russia's stake is control of the Black Sea Basin...which will cement Russia as mandatory near monopoly energy supplier to Europe. Europe's stake is to have access to non-Russian energy. The US's and NATO's stake is to prevent the re-arming of Europe by ensuring they have no REASON to re-arm.

    Pick your outcome:

    If Russia gets both Crimea and East Ukrainian land routes to Ukraine, then they decisively control energy to Europe. Europe's choices are then to EITHER a) Trust the US to ensure their economies and access to energy b) Ensure European access to energy themselves - militarily c) Become Russian colonies.

    Russia's choices are: a) Commit Russia to militarily conquering Ukraine and then use the economic benefit of that position to arm themselves for the inevitable world war that will result b) Resign itself to open competition for energy by surrendering either East Ukraine or Crimea.

    The US's choices are: a) Incrementally increase pressure on Russia via economic and/or military means until they allow Europe to have access to non-Russian energy b) Ignore Ukraine with the cost of later involvement in a world war in europe c) Ignore Ukraine and then withdraw from the transatlantic alliance.

    The fact is that the US is over-extended and should not have given Putin a reason for overt involvement. The fact is that Europe is un-prepared to militarily deter Russia from turning them into energy-plantation slaves. The fact is that EUrope is too proud and powerful for Russia as currently composed to force into energy submission simultaneously detering Europe from contesting the matter militarily.

    In the next 20 years there will be a major war in Europe, on the scale of WWII. Russia will be facing all of Western Europe.

    Russia propaganda seems confused about the organization of Power in the West, presenting it as a US-led top-down organization. In fact it is led by powerful European interests who act through governments. This is all highly observable. What did you think the eminence of the CFR was all about? What did you think Bilderberg was for??? When the European governments were decimated after WWII those interests acted through the US government.

    Europe is no longer decimated, and the shift of power from US to European entities has been historic and EASILY observable. What do you think the Eurozone and EU are all about??

    There's a lot of high-time preference going on - on every side of this, as each side too heavily weights the desirability of the fruit they see before them, and overly discounts the later costs of that fruit - both Europe and Russia wanting the Ukrainian fruit for the energy power it gives them, and the US in underestimating the costs of their chosen course to placate Europe via meddling in Ukraine.

    This is not going to end well for anyone in Europe no matter how it plays out. The stakes are too big for too many big powers.

    The US would be better off isolationist, and preparing to re-open ellis island. A lot of war refugees will need a home soon.

    China need only wait to inherit Eurasia from those who plan to foolishly decimate themselves.

    Rusputin

    So that would be a US/NATO/EU coup on a US/NATO/EU coup?

    Isn't one coup normally enough for a few years? The first one lasted 12 months and obviously the backstops weren't placed carefully enough, me thinks the bribery money is running out (has run out)!

    Catullus

    Here's Ron Paul in 2002 asking why the US was meddling with Ukrainian elections...

    http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5688

    Armed Resistance

    Here you go: Victoria Nuland admitting that the US spent $5B to have regime change..

    http://youtu.be/U2fYcHLouXY

    Flybyknight

    Off the wall? That is where anyone who does not believe that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent mess Ukraine has become.

    [Feb 12, 2015] BBC send signals - It's not that simple with EuroMaidan snipergate events!

    Feb 12, 2015 | annbeaker.livejournal.com

    BBC staff now decided to play the role of "daughters of an officer" (NSA financed bots in social networks that assumes this identity and channel State Deportment talking points and trying to discredit opponents pretending that they write from the place of the event) and all the morning very emotionally told us that events on Maidan square was not that simple!

    Really?

    It turns out there are witnesses and facts which suggest that its not now Yanukovich who ordered those snipers to fire, but it was opposition people who were firing at demonstrators. There are even widows who claim that their statements about the death of loved ones were rejected first by junta and then by Fat Pig government.

    Oh, Oh, what an affront! The British have always been shameless whores, you know.

    It seems that the attempts were made, while sluggish, to disown Fat Pig and his camarilla. Let's see how things will develop next week, Washington Obcom did not provide final guidelines on this matter yet.

    [Feb 11, 2015] Poroshenko: Ukraine conflict risks spiralling out of control

    Quote: Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in Washington – are still recycling their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine", "Moscow is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine", and it goes on.

    Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator John McCain have played a key role in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low point in international racketeering…

    Feb 11, 2015 |theguardian.com

    Ian56789

    War by media and the triumph of propaganda by John Pilger

    Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times and the Washington Post deceive their readers?

    Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity? And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power?

    These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists, including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.

    The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays called it, an "invisible government". It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.

    The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.

    This power to create a new "reality" has building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual."

    I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling and political action had failed and only "culture" and introspection could change the world.

    Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of "me-ism" had all but overwhelmed our sense of acting together, our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the media was the message.

    Read more at :- http://johnpilger.com/articles/war-by-media-and-the-triumph-of-propaganda

    centerline

    The Minsk talks are about to enter their tenth hour, with the delegations of Germany, France, Russia, and Ukraine still trying to reach a final compromise and come up with a joint resolution. Journalists have been covering the event for almost 12 hours now.

    http://rt.com/news/231327-minsk-peace-talks-updates/

    Pity the guardian doesn't have any journalists.

    Nickel07 -> centerline

    They rely on the arduous task of watching FOX (and it is incredibly arduous) or repeating whatever dribble comes out of the BBC

    Ian56789

    Nato's action plan in Ukraine is right out of Dr Strangelove by John Pilger

    (Extract)

    The genius of Stanley Kubrick's film is that it accurately represents the cold war's lunacy and dangers. Most of the characters are based on real people and real maniacs. There is no equivalent to Strangelove today because popular culture is directed almost entirely at our interior lives, as if identity is the moral zeitgeist and true satire is redundant, yet the dangers are the same. The nuclear clock has remained at five minutes to midnight; the same false flags are hoisted above the same targets by the same "invisible government", as Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations, described modern propaganda.

    In 1964, the year Dr Strangelove was made, "the missile gap" was the false flag. To build more and bigger nuclear weapons and pursue an undeclared policy of domination, President John F Kennedy approved the CIA's propaganda that the Soviet Union was well ahead of the US in the production of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This filled front pages as the "Russian threat". In fact, the Americans were so far ahead in production of the missiles, the Russians never approached them. The cold war was based largely on this lie.

    Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato enlargement project. Reneging on a US promise to the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand "one inch to the east", Nato has all but taken over eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato's military build-up is the most extensive since the second world war.

    In February, the US mounted one of its proxy "colour" coups against the elected government of Ukraine; the shock troops were fascists. For the first time since 1945, a pro-Nazi, openly antisemitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism on the border of Russia. Some 30 million Russians died in the invasion of their country by Hitler's Nazis, who were supported by the infamous Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the UPA) which was responsible for numerous Jewish and Polish massacres. The Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, of which the UPA was the military wing, inspires today's Svoboda party.

    Since Washington's putsch in Kiev – and Moscow's inevitable response in Russian Crimea to protect its Black Sea fleet – the provocation and isolation of Russia have been inverted in the news to the "Russian threat". This is fossilised propaganda. The US air force general who runs Nato forces in Europe – General Philip Breedlove, no less – claimed more than two weeks ago to have pictures showing 40,000 Russian troops "massing" on the border with Ukraine. So did Colin Powell claim to have pictures proving there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is certain is that Barack Obama's rapacious, reckless coup in Ukraine has ignited a civil war and Vladimir Putin is being lured into a trap.

    Following a 13-year rampage that began in stricken Afghanistan well after Osama bin Laden had fled, then destroyed Iraq beneath a false flag, invented a "nuclear rogue" in Iran, dispatched Libya to a Hobbesian anarchy and backed jihadists in Syria, the US finally has a new cold war to supplement its worldwide campaign of murder and terror by drone.

    Read more at:- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/17/nato-ukraine-dr-strangelove-china-us

    HisRume

    Lets be clear. Kiev must answer for their crimes when this is settled:

    On June 2nd 2014 a Ukraine jet fighter attacked the central administrative building in Lugansk city killing seven civilians. It was a gross act of state terrorism It was not a military target.

    Immediately the US and the Ukraine UN Representative lied, saying it was a misfiring rebel anti-aircraft manpad device that struck the buildings air con.

    Yet, when the osce investigation pronounced it had been a jet fighter attack, Kiev and Washington still denied it.

    They have still not answered to this war crime - the first terrorist act of this crisis incidentally.

    Lets not forget WHO is responsible for the appalling, criminal deaths in the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk and who started the "terror".

    Hermius

    GreatMountainEagle

    'The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking world who has not changed from the beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.'

    This has to be the funniest thing ever posted on here (and saddest for those trapped in the PutinSSR)

    Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle

    Why do you get off on being a Goldman Sachs / Neocon troll?

    Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle

    Putin currently has an 86% approval rating in Russia. Primarily this is because they were ruled by Goldman Sachs and the US under Yeltsin in the 1990's. Yeltsin caused the collapse of the Russian economy and a 40% drop in people's living standards. Russia was a total mess by the late 1990's.

    Putin enjoys a very high approval rating because they do NOT want to be ruled by Goldman Sachs again and they see Putin as the only guy that can stop it from happening.

    Americans and Europeans haven't done so well living under Goldman Sachs rule for the last circa 15 years either. People's real standards of living in the developed countries has declined significantly.

    richiep40

    Forgetting all the name calling, who started it etc. what I don't get is how anyone can think this will work.

    The only premise where this will be possible is if the West will reign in Kiev's wish to obliterate the East of Ukraine and Russia can persuade the rebels that this is true.

    Without at least some assurances from the West about the safety of the East, the rebels will fight on, even if Putin removed his support (which he won't do if he thinks there will be a bloodbath, it would be political suicide for him).

    You can't ask Russia to get out of the situation if they think the Lunatics in charge of Kiev will do what they want to do.

    NormVan

    The US always attacking Putin. Russia has a functioning, united government of which Putin is one part. When the US decides to attack, the first thing they create is an evil dictator. They can bring freedom to the masses. US freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.

    Obama having a hissy fit with Putin is childish. Obama got a start working for Henry Kissinger and rumored to work for the CIA.
    If he wants to do something useful he could send Mrs Nuland back to Kiev with some of her delicious cookies

    Goodthanx -> NormVan

    To gain a nomination of Presidency, you are prescreened by the Cia. Meaning, are you willing to be a lacky for the Cia, and the Military industrialists?
    No president has a long future without the support of both. JFK case in point.

    Nickel07

    Once the peace agreement is signed...what are you lot on the dark side going to do just come here and try to push back the tide of the investigations that will surely follow? What are you going to do try to scream Putin is a Nazi like kindergarten kids?

    I think you are about to lose big time and not just in Ukraine, but also by losing the little credibility you still have with some countries as demonstrated by the approach taken by Hollande and Merkel.
    And, to compound it all:

    "the reality of "American leadership" at times entails "twisting the arms" of states which "don't do what we need them to do," and that the US relied on its military strength and other leverage to achieve its goals."

    Translation : We coerce some folk.


    Mulefish

    Why tell us what Poro thinks, Guardian; he always lies, wasting our time and Guardian outdated reporters ink.

    Why tell us what Obama thinks, mass murderer. evil, inadequate, coward, fool, and the cause of all this. He is out of his depth; this is not any of his business; he should butt out He will have to.

    Merkel is just finding her voice and her brains and cutting loose the Yankee Nazi twits.

    The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking world who has not changed from the beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.

    Ian56789

    NATO's Nazis: Ethnic Cleansing Their Opposition in East Ukraine
    November 17, 2014

    Nearly one year on from the US-backed faux 'colour revolution' in Maidan Square, the Ukraine has been violently ripped into pieces by the new CIA-backed government in Kiev.

    What began with pro-EU colour mobs and far right-wing neo-Nazi gangs in Kiev, has escalated to ethnic cleansing in the eastern half of the country. The horrors are unspeakable, as detailed in the report below (with video). NATO, led by the US and Britain, are actively backing Kiev's military brutal campaign of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing against Russian-speaking people in the east of that country.

    Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in Washington – are still recycling their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine", "Moscow is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine", and it goes on.

    Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator John McCain have played a key role in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low point in international racketeering…

    Read more at:- http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/11/17/natos-nazis-ethnic-cleansing-their-opposition-in-east-ukraine/

    richiep40

    Interesting Newsnight on the Maidan shootings, perhaps it wasn't so black and white.

    The much more devastating ARD (German TV) report (from about a year ago) seems to have been removed from the Internet. It used to be on YouTube.

    The only place I can find it is

    http://potentnews.com/2014/04/29/german-tv-10-4-14-who-were-the-maidan-snipers-ukraine/

    But don't bother ARD has removed the right to broadcast it for 'licencing' reasons.

    For a textual analysis of ARD's report try this, it about two pages down

    http://www.bne.eu/content/story/snipergate-who-ordered-shootings-kyivs-maidan

    Ian56789 richiep40

    The sniper shootings in Maidan

    The sniper fire came from the upper floors and roofs of buildings controlled by the protestors
    (Other pictures show the Berkut Police firing - but they are firing downwards in front of the protestors to try and stop their advance NOT firing at them.)

    The sniper's massacre in Maidan Feb 18th to 20th, that directly led to the Coup in Ukraine:-
    An academic analysis by a Canadian http://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine

    Kiev snipers were hired by Maidan leaders - the leaked EU's Ashton phone tape http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

    Full Videoproof of Maidan snipers killing Ukraine Civilians Shooting From Behind! warning GRAPHIC 18+ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnBa0Uj3Ijw&feature=youtu.be

    ​'No evidence of Berkut police behind mass killing in Kiev' – probe head
    There is no forensic evidence linking the victims of mass killings in Kiev on February 20 with officers from the Berkut police unit, the head of the parliamentary commission investigating the murders told journalists.

    "This will be yet another case, like the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which is still being investigated today," Gennady Moskal reported.

    The MP made the statements at a media conference on Tuesday gathered to announce preliminary results of his commission's probe. He assured that despite the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's office having arrested 12 Berkut officers on allegations of committing the mass killings, forensic evidence suggests their innocence.

    He said the bullets that killed people in Kiev on the bloodies day of confrontation between protesters seeking to oust President Viktor Yanukovich and riot police didn't match any of the firearms issued to Berkut's special unit, which, unlike the majority of riot police, was allowed to carry lethal weapons.

    http://rt.com/news/158864-kiev-snipers-not-berkut/

    The man in charge of those controlling the buildings from which the snipers fired was Andrey Parubiy who after the Coup was appointed head of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.

    Read more at:- http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/how-february-coup-in-kiev-was-plotted.html

    Mulefish -> Ian56789

    This was all reported on R.T.V. at the time.

    They had reporters on the ground when this was happening. They showed us the remarkable restraint shown by the Berkut in the face of being in the face of being viciously assailed by infused, probably drug fuelled, certainly Yankee pie and five billion fuelled, Nazi thugs, and the illogical directions from which the sniper bullets came. (~This type of third party sniping is typical Yank false flag trickery. They probably provided the snipers too.)

    They also broadcast the transcript of the Ashton phone call and her goofy, coward, reaction, not taken up, indeed studiously ignored, by the Western so-called press.

    In like vein, Putin offered up his radar records for the downing of MH17, including records of the presence of Ukrainian fighter planes present at the time, an offer not matched by the Kiev Junta or the mouthy U.S. deep in the throes of lying about the incident , all the same, with typical foul mouthedness.

    So easy to fool the common denizens of the West, especially the "exceptional" Yankees and their British government ass lickers.

    richiep40 -> Ian56789

    Thanks for all the info, I wouldn't say I knew all about all the research, but I definitely got the drift.

    I was really just commenting that the BBC Newsnight report was the first time that any of the British Media have come even slightly off message.

    For instance there were some reports from Donetsk on the horrible conditions there and the civilian casualties on BBC Radio this morning, but not once did they mention these were all in the City Centre held by the rebels and the only conceivable people launching the attacks were the Ukrainian forces.

    Now to anyone who takes an interest it is obvious, but for the casual listener who doesn't have an interest, I doubt it.

    coober

    Every government can use the full employment equation:
    Full Employment (FE) = Pension (P) X 1.2 X Money Velocity (MV) X 0.001
    That equation is for all Nations and States.

    A Ukraine Government can immediately tax Murdoch-type tax evaders, etc at 0.001% of money velocity and pay a new 20% State Pension.

    There is absolutely no valid excuse for unemployment in Ukraine. The State Pension can be adjusted lower and the tax rate can be adjusted higher. The pension is to spread the money around to create more small businesses and more jobs. The tiny rate of tax is for High Frequency Traders, Gamblers, Murdoch-types etc. Everyday people will not notice it.

    When Governments and people learn how good this modern tax is, we will be able to use it to replace Income Tax etc. War is obsolete.

    centerline coober

    One small hitch. It is the Murdoch type that make the taxes. They put people in power who will tax the poor so the government can subside the Murdochs.

    Murdoch moved his Australian accounting office offshore a few years ago so the Australian tax office paid Murdoch three quarters of a billion dollars.

    Bud Peart

    "Obama rounded unusually personally on Putin. "He has a foot very much in the Soviet past. That's how he came of age. He ran the KGB,"

    He ran the FSB, is he stupid or was this a planned lie to ratchet up cold war hysteria?

    [Feb 10, 2015] The Bout Opening – Stick to Checkers, America. Not Up In Here.

    Moscow Exile . February 10, 2015 at 12:46 pm
    Has Nuland started eating binges in order to comfort herself after her realization that her Ukraine adventure has been a total cock up?
    Jen , February 10, 2015 at 4:18 pm
    She must have, Victoria the Cookie Monster has no cookies left for Poroshenko.

    [Feb 10, 2015] Nulandgate proves traditional diplomacy doesn't work anymore by Peter Koenig

    Feb 10, 2015 | The Voice of Russia News

    Peter Koenig, a former World Bank economist and a Voice of Russia regular, commentates on the economic angle of "Nulandgate" and the US foreign policy

    Voice of Russia: From your point of view, how important is "Nulandgate"?

    Peter Koenig: The conversation of a Kerry aide with the US Ambassador in Kiev proves several things. First: traditional diplomacy doesn't work anymore. Second: it proves that the US is playing a game of power and aggression, interfering with democratically elected governments of other countries.

    Voice of Russia: Could you describe this "game of power and aggression"?

    Peter Koenig: There are obvious facets of it: trying to install puppet governments and organize outright military invasions. There are less obvious facets. Look at the western non-governmental organizations, NGOs. They are all over the place, also in Syria, Iran, Turkey, Central and South America. They were at the origin of the so-called Arab Spring, they have attempted disturbing the Russian elections. The problem is that have endless flows of "Mickey Mouse money" i.e. money that has no backing, money that is just printed or electronically produced as needed by the empire. The same thing helps the empire cope the high cost of their propaganda machine. It is free money.

    Voice of Russia: What you're saying implies that America's successes in steamrolling their geopolitical foes in largely dependent on their never-ending flow of dollars used for soft-power, propaganda and bribery of political leaders.

    Peter Koenig: As long as most of the rest of the world uses the dollar a as currency of reference, yes. Those who buy the US debt, actually pay for the wars, for the propaganda, for the destabilizing NGOs, you name it. The US treasury bonds pay for just about anything that the empire does to take over the world. It is one of the best thought-out systems of the empire. They hold the world on a shoe-string with an artificially imposed monetary system. Simple. But nobody, or only few, seem to understand it. Surprisingly, much of the rest of the world hasn't caught on and destroyed the dollar.

    Voice of Russia: Do you see a solution for Ukraine and for other countries targeted by the US?

    Peter Koenig: Its never too late to officially ban and expel the nefarious NGOs from Ukraine, as a first step. Secondly or simultaneously, destroy the dollar to stop the blood bath, that's the solution. It is so clear that traditional diplomacy doesn't work. Russia and China can stop this disaster without the use of weapons by breaking the existing monetary system based on the US dollar.

    Voice of Russia: It's Olympics time and it's natural that I ask about your impressions and your thoughts on Sochi.

    Peter Koenig: The opening ceremony was spectacular. I like would Sochi to become a global symbol. Let Sochi be a symbol of Peace. "Sports for Peace!" is the true meaning of the Olympics. Mr. Putin will be remembered for having put the Olympics in 'his' town. The games, despite all the western criticism, are a success and have helped put this part of the world on the world map, connected by the infrastructurethat goes with an Olympic event, to the rest of the world. Furthermore, Sochi being located in the troubled Caucasus, this infrastructure will also help to protect Chechnya from foreign interventions with the goal of eventually getting to their hydrocarbon riches.

    Other world leaders are known for starting wars, for killing people, for overthrowing democratically elected governments or are known for bending over backwards to please those who start these wars and aggressions. Well, good for Mr. Putin that he is different!

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2014_02_10/Nulandgate-proves-traditional-diplomacy-doesnt-work-anymore-Koenig-1887/

    [Feb 02, 2015] Ukraine was replaced with Euromaidan Republic, Neo-Khazaria and the Union of Donbass Republics by Semen Uralov (Ukrainian Political Scientist)

    February 1, 2015 | Fort Russ

    "Sunday Night with Vladimir Solovyev" on Russia 1
    Translated by Kristina Rus

    Kuchma is first of all the Godfather of the oligarchic model which brought Ukraine to this crisis. This is why he is sent to Minsk, although he doesn't have any power.

    There are two factors to this crisis. There is the intra-political factor. The power was seized by raiders just as they raided their factories in the 90's, built their empires, like Kolomoisky with his Privat Group. Now they can apply these methods at the framework of the entire country.

    The task is to bankrupt the assets, so that people wouldn't even as for salaries. Same model worked with companies in Russia. This is the intra-Ukrainian factor. The raiders are using those methods which they had perfected in the 90's.

    And then there is the outside factor.

    The ultimate goal is the free trade zone between the EU and the USA. Ukraine is the working material, is the motor oil, which has to be utilized, then burned down and disposed of.

    Therefore there is a congruence of two interests - of the American party which is playing for the free trade zone, and a break up of the relationship between Russia and EU, and - the raiders who are on the inside and are given carte blanche for any actions.

    And for peace talks you need the correct number of entities.

    There are not just two quasi-state formations in Ukraine. Ukraine is not Ukraine anymore.

    There is a separate "Euromaidan Republic" with the capital in Kiev. There is a "Union of Donbass Republics" - LPR and DPR.

    And, as we coined the name - "Neo-Khazaria" with the capital in Dnepropetrovsk. Because Mr. Kolomoisky controls Dnepropetrovsk region and Odessa region.

    This is hypothetical, of course.

    But de facto these are the three entitiess which act rather autonomously. Nuland comes for talks with Kolomoisky in Odessa, and there are no representatives from Kiev. Accordingly he is not represented at the peace talks with DPR and LPR.

    So the quantity of acting entities should be taken into account.


    And the fourth entity (of interest) is Crimea.

    Why is the Ukrainian elite so outraged by Crimea?

    Because Ukrainian elites plundered Crimea for the last 20 years. Beginning with each deputy and ending with each minister, each one of them has their own summer house, a boat and a factory in Crimea. And now they lost all of it. And this is why Crimea is a subject of interest.

    [Jan 25, 2015] Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, Klichko ought to take poison or shoot themselves, like Hitler and Himmler.--A View From Ukraine By Mikhail Mishchishin

    Jan 24, 2015 | fortruss.blogspot.com | Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

    I can't imagine how the Ukrainian government is planning its undeclared war against Russia, especially in the East which borders Russia.

    The Maidan anarchy broke the Ukrainian army and all security services. Volunteer battalions are useful against unarmed civilians and excel as marauders and executioners. But they do not know how, do not like, and do not want to fight, withdrawing as soon as the fighting against militiamen and Russian volunteers gets serious.

    Our highly praised volunteer commanders tend to receive very timely wounds so as to be evacuated from the battlefield ahead of the cannon fodder, in the same fashion as they disappeared (along with Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, and Klichko) from the Maidan just before it was fired upon by snipers. Or, even better, they became Rada deputies and are now defending Ukraine there, not at the front.

    What is the Ukrainian government hoping for? NATO help? But NATO will not send its soldiers to their deaths in the same fashion as Ukraine's leaders.

    Maybe the Americans will defend us? Oh, sure, they'll fight willingly. But they also don't hurry to help. US military personnel may not show up in Ukraine at all. It's obvious they'll get another Vietnam or Afghanistan here. War against the Russians will once and for all bury the Hollywood myth of the invincibility of the US Marines.

    This myth is worth much more than the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Far more billions of dollars were invested in it than in the democratic dismantlement of the Ukrainian state through "for sale" politicians, journalists, experts, sociologists, and economists. Five billion dollars is small change for the US. They can easily write off the loss. No, the US intent is for Russians to fight against Europe. The US wants to look at the slaughter from afar, participating in it just as they participated in World War 2. They'll arrive in Kiev just as they arrived in Berlin. To divide Germany, not fight against fascism.

    I see only one natural exit from the dead end of the Maidan and civil war. Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, Klichko ought to take poison or shoot themselves, like Hitler and Himmler. Their suicides saved the Germans and Germany from complete annihilation. If Ukraine's leaders are patriots, as they claim, they can simply leave the game. Thus saving Ukraine and Ukrainians from death, a total economic collapse, and the destruction of Ukrainian cities.

    The time to die for Ukraine has come. But not for simple workers and peasants. The time has come for you. Weren't you the ones shouting for Yanukovych to leave? He left. Now it's your turn. Just leave us once and for all. And then the war in Ukraine will end.

    [Jan 25, 2015] How can the West solve its Ukraine problem? by Anatol Lieven

    This news, supported by the USA, Drang nach Osten can proved to be costly to EU and, especially, Germany and ruinous to Ukrainian economy.

    Quote: "As far as Ukraine's eastern Donbass region is concerned, any solution has to involve very extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, guaranteed by the international community - not the ridiculous offer of temporary three-year autonomy which Kiev has offered so far... In addition, the EU should back the guarantee of Russian language rights in Ukraine - not because Moscow is demanding it, but because the West badly needs to assert its own values in the face of the growing power of neo-fascist groups in Ukraine."

    Dec 3, 2015 | BBC News

    Russia badly overplayed its hand last year when it tried to bring Ukraine into the Eurasian Union against the passionate opposition of many Ukrainians.

    The European Union is now risking the same thing by trying to bring Ukraine into the West without reference to economic reality or the willingness of European publics to bear the enormous costs involved, and at a time when the EU itself is in deepening crisis.

    Russia is suffering badly as a result of Western economic sanctions - but Ukraine's situation is far worse, with a predicted fall in GDP of 7% this year.

    If this decline continues, the Ukrainian state will face collapse,

    Throughout the 23 years since the end of the Soviet Union, too many members of the Western media and policy worlds have ignored or misrepresented key aspects of the Ukrainian-Russian economic relationship.

    The West simply does not have the means or the will to integrate Ukraine into the West while isolating it from Russia.

    This allowed them in turn to ignore crucial features of the economic balance of power in Ukraine between Russia and the West.

    In their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.

    This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.

    Russian trade vital

    Western commentators were not wrong to portray Russia as supporting a deeply corrupt and semi-authoritarian system of government in Ukraine - but they too often forgot to mention that trade with Russia has also been responsible for preserving much of the Ukrainian economy.

    It is not just that Russia remains Ukraine's largest partner, with trade in 2013 exceeding that with the whole of the EU; it is also a question of what is being traded. Ukraine exports manufactured goods to Russia, thereby supporting what is left of Ukrainian industry.

    A gas pressure gauge on the main gas pipeline from Russia, in the village of Boyarka near the capital Kiev, Ukraine. Russian gas has been key to the Ukrainian economy
    To the European Union, Ukraine mostly sends raw materials and agricultural products - with the latter in particular heavily restricted by EU quotas and tariffs.

    Ignoring this enabled Western commentators to ignore the question of how - in order to move towards the EU - Ukraine could restrict its trading relationship with Russia without ruining its economy in the process; or, on the other hand, whether the EU would be willing to change its own rules so as to admit Ukrainian imports.

    Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.

    As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.

    This is at least three times the number of Ukrainians working legally in the whole of the European Union.

    In order to bring Ukraine into the West, would EU members be willing to allow free movement of Ukrainian labour?

    And - as is necessary if the EU is to turn Ukraine into a strong anti-Russian ally - to do so not in some almost impossible future of Ukrainian EU membership, but tomorrow?

    The answer is obvious.

    No integration

    The UK Independence Party is soaring in the polls and mounting a strong campaign to take Britain out of the European Union in a referendum backed by the Conservatives and scheduled for 2017.

    All over the EU, right-wing parties are gathering strength.

    In France, sober commentators are warning that there is a real chance that in 2022 the National Front could win the French elections and Marine Le Pen could become President of France.

    And all of these developments are driven above all by hostility to immigration.

    On the one hand, therefore, the West is clearly not prepared to make the economic sacrifices necessary to support the Ukrainian economy in the face of Russian hostility.

    The existing conflict in Ukraine makes it impossible for any Ukrainian government to conduct the kind of economic and political reforms on which the EU is insisting

    On the other, the existing conflict in Ukraine makes it impossible for any Ukrainian government to conduct the kind of economic and political reforms on which the EU is insisting, and on which Ukrainian progress towards the West depends.

    By slashing subsidies and closing down much of Ukrainian industry, such reforms would drive much of the population of eastern and southern Ukraine into the arms of Russia.

    By attacking corruption, they would destroy the position of oligarchs in those regions who are key to enforcing Kiev's authority there.

    Kiev's dependence on these oligarchs and on nationalist militias to fight the war in eastern Ukraine represents a serious and growing threat to Ukrainian democracy and to the spread of liberal values in Ukraine.

    A worrying sign in this regard was the appointment last month of Vadim Troyan as regional chief of police in Kiev. His regiment, the Azov battalion, is known for links to the far right and his promotion seems largely in reward for his group's participation in the fighting in eastern Ukraine.

    This was counter-balanced by the appointment of a Jewish speaker in Parliament.

    Compromise needed

    But the lessons of all this should be obvious. The West simply does not have the means or the will to integrate Ukraine into the West while isolating it from Russia.

    The effort to do so is not strengthening but undermining Ukrainian democracy.

    The time for blowhard posturing is over

    If there is to be any chance of Ukrainian economic and political progress, a compromise must be found whereby Ukraine can continue to trade as openly as possible with both the EU and Russia and Ukrainians can continue to work freely in Russia.

    That would leave Ukraine free to carry out the internal reforms that it needs to undertake, whether or not it is headed for EU membership.

    This will be impossible unless at the same time there is a political compromise with Russia; and the terms of such a compromise are equally obvious.

    In the first place, Ukraine should be neutralised.

    This cuts both ways. Russia would formally have to abandon - as in effect it already has - hopes to bring Ukraine into a Russian-led bloc.

    The West would formally have to abandon the possibility of bringing Ukraine into Nato; and the West too has in effect already done this by demonstrating again and again its unwillingness under any circumstances to fight to defend Ukraine.

    As far as Ukraine's eastern Donbass region is concerned, any solution has to involve very extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, guaranteed by the international community - not the ridiculous offer of temporary three-year autonomy which Kiev has offered so far.

    In addition, the EU should back the guarantee of Russian language rights in Ukraine - not because Moscow is demanding it, but because the West badly needs to assert its own values in the face of the growing power of neo-fascist groups in Ukraine.

    Opposition to such a deal in certain Western quarters will be bitter; but once again, these opponents need to ask themselves just how much they are prepared to sacrifice and to risk in order to turn Ukraine into a pro-Western and anti-Russian state.

    The time for blowhard posturing is over. The time for hard economic calculation has begun.

    Anatol Lieven is a professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Qatar. He is author among other books of Ukraine and Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry.

    [Jan 25, 2015] SATIRE 10 Reasons Why Victoria Nuland Should Be Seen as Stalin of Today

    Jan 25, 2015 | Russia Insider
    10. Both use made up names. Stalin's family name was Jugashvilli, Nuland's ancestor's name was Nudelman. The ancestors of both Nuland and Stalin came from the Russian empire, which probably gave them both the idea that they have a special knowledge of how to handle Russia.

    9. Nuland's right hand man happens to be her husband, Robert Kagan. Stalin's right hand man was a fellow communist, named Lazar Kagan(ovich). Kagan co-authored "Project for a New American Century" and he obviously wants to realized his vision for Ukraine by implementing what might be called, "amerikanizatsiia," that is, the process of bringing in the officials from US and other countries to run Ukraine along the American lines. In his turn, Kaganovich was the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR from 1925-1928 and was expected to usher in "New Soviet Century" through the politics of "ukrainizatsiya": creating a new ruling Soviet elite for Ukraine, the elite brought in primarily from other places.

    8. Both are clear ideologues: Nuland of "neocon movement", Stalin of bolshevism. Both went to schooling with the masters and chief ideologues. Nuland worked closely with Rumsfeld and Cheney, starting as Vice President's senior aide, and eventually serving as his deputy national security adviser. In his essay for Financial Times, Geoff Dyer quotes an former colleague in the Obama administration State Department , who observed that "I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table." While Lenin's widower, Krupskaia, joked that had Lenin re-appeared when Stalin was already in charge, he would have had Lenin put to jail for deviating from the party course.

    7. Both are willing to see through numerous deaths in Ukraine to get the territory under their influence. Stalin together with Kaganovich unleashed forced collectivization upon Ukraine, resulting in mass death of peasants, known as Holodomor. Nuland's and her fellow neocons' forced "americanization" resulted in the civil war between Donbass and Kiev, that so far has claimed thousands of lives, destroyed infrastructure, and produced hundreds of thousands of refugees.

    6. They both tend to be aggressive and demanding and refuse to take no for an answer. Consequently, they prefer to squeeze their opponents till they break. Geoff Dyer's quotes Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest in Washington DC who observed: "It is clear that her whole approach is to push Russia so hard that it has no choice but to accommodate the US." Stalin's ability to squeeze his opponents is, of course, proverbial.

    5. According to Stalin's critic, Abdurakhman Aftorkhanov, Stalin made two mistakes during the WWII. He showed Europe to Russians (soldiers who saw how prosperous it was and realized that they were duped). And he showed Russians to Europe – which got scared, and started NATO, and other programs. The fate of Russia and the rest of the world has changed as the result of these mistakes. Someday, Nuland's critics will charge her with accomplishing a similar feat. She has fully exposed to the Western world Ukraine's lawlessness, corruption, and neofascism. And she has amply demonstrated Western World to both Ukrainians and Russians, who will never trust it again: seeing its unscrupulous meddling into their affairs.

    4. Both are too arrogant and impatient to waste their time of diplomacy, and prefer to cut to the chase. They dismiss the possible opposition or obstacles with the similar terms. "F..k EU," famously observed Nuland, in response to the questions about EU attitude toward the regime change in Ukraine. Stalin never hesitated to resort to the foul language, calling Lenin's wife, "syphilitic whore," or bragging that in the course of WWII he managed to outsmart Great Britain: "Stalin could always raise a laugh from his courtiers by saying, as he often did: 'We f***ed England!'"

    3. Both prefer to rule by decree and appoint the people to the offices. While Nuland boldly proclaimed from the comfort of her office that Yatseniuk will be the future leader of Ukraine: "Yats is the man," Stalin, of course, went even further, not only assigning Kaganovich, Khrushchev, and others to run Ukraine, but threating Lenin's widow, Krupskaia, that if she continues to challenge him, he'll appoint another woman as Lenin's widow.

    2. Similarly to Stalin, who for the sake of strategic purposes made the deal with Nazis (Ribbentrop), Nuland held various meetings with Ukraine's Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist, neo-fascist organizations; and seems to be very cozy with Svoboda leader, Oleh Tyahnybok.

    1. And finally, both Stalin and Nuland tend to present themselves in stunning visual imagery as the good caring parents of the new nation, easily duping the gullible locals. Here is Stalin surrounded by admiring Soviet children who are forever grateful to him for their happy childhood, and here is Nuland, surrounded by happy Ukrainians, whom she feeds with pastry as they are ready to embark on the path toward the new statehood.

    Stalin cookies vs Nuland cookies (or Ukrainians as clueless children)

    Continued

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

    [Dec 02, 2017] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo

    [Nov 29, 2017] The Russian Question by Niall Ferguson

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

    [Dec 19, 2019] A joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton Foundation.

    [Dec 18, 2019] Rudy Giuliani Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted

    [Dec 17, 2019] Neocons like car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking credibility because ther profession is to lie in order to sell weapons to the publin, much like used car saleme lie to sell cars

    [Dec 06, 2019] Who Is Making US Foreign Policy by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Dec 04, 2019] Responding to Lt. Col. Vindman about my Ukraine columns with the facts John Solomon Reports

    [Nov 26, 2019] John Solomon Everything Changes In The Ukraine Scandal If Trump Releases These Documents

    [Oct 23, 2019] Neoconservatism Is An Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Oct 20, 2019] How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion

    [Sep 23, 2019] Giuliani Hits Bidens With New $3 Million Ukraine-Latvia-Cyprus Money Laundering Accusation

    [Sep 20, 2019] Trump Whistleblower Drama Puts Biden In The Hot Seat Over Ukraine

    [Sep 17, 2019] The Devolution of US-Russia Relations by Tony Kevin

    [Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage

    [Aug 17, 2019] The Unraveling of the Failed Trump Coup by Larry C Johnson

    [Aug 12, 2019] Bruce Ohr 302s by Larry C Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

    [Jul 23, 2019] John Helmer MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt To Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephon

    [Jul 23, 2019] Ukraine Election - Voters Defeat Second Color Revolution

    [May 31, 2019] Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, in an interview with FCCJ (Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan) stated that he did not believe in Russia's involvement in the crash of the Boeing MH17

    [May 02, 2019] Russian and Eurasian Politics by Gordon M. Hahn

    [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

    [Apr 13, 2019] America as a Myth of good life is a powerful tool of color revolutions

    [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry

    [Mar 25, 2019] Nuland role in Russiagate

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Jan 24, 2020] Peter Hitchen to Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat: You're not in the ladies' lingerie trade now, sweetie

    [Jan 24, 2020] Crimes of the century truth, perception and punishment

    [Jan 17, 2020] Ukraine is a deeply sick patient. The destiny of ordinary Ukrainians is deeply tragic. Diaspora is greedy and want a piece of cake immediately

    [Jan 04, 2020] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    Sites



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology 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


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This 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.

    Last modified: January, 20, 2021