"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... " 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 ™. ..."
…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.
" 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 ™.
"... 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! ..."
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.
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:
Michael Flynn, who led the DIA revolt against Syria policy
Dempsey, a pragmatic cold warrior who is allergic to making the enemy into a cardboard
super-villan (good enough for this Putinista)
Patrick Lang (more below)
and that wonderfully clear-headed Hawaiin congress-critter (can't be arsed to look her
up)
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.
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!
"... 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. ..."
&
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.
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.
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.
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":
Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes
and accounts of personal experiences.
When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committee as
large as possible - never less than five.
Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability
of that decision.
Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result
in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
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:
In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that important jobs are assigned to inefficient
workers.
Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw.
To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions.
Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, paychecks, and so on. See that three people have
to approve everything where one would do.
Finally, the guide presents protocol for how saboteur-employees can disrupt enemy operations, too:
Work slowly.
Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can.
Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing
you from doing your job right.
Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.
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.
"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?
"... 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. ..."
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."
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". ...
"... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons
arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and
world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from
potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth."
Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are
entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their
nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at
just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most
important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."
"... 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. ..."
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.
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 ..."
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."
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"... 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... ..."
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?
"... 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 ..."
"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."
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. ..."
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.
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.
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
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".
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.
"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.
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?
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.
"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).
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... 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. ..."
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:
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.
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. ..."
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.
"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'." ..."
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'."
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.
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.
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. ..."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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':
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.
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.
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...
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."
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.
"... 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. ..."
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)
"... 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. ..."
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)
"... 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. ..."
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)
"... 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. ..."
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)
"... 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. ..."
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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!
"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".
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."
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…]
Exclusive: Ukraine's post-coup regime is now melding neo-Nazi storm troopers
with Islamic militants – called "brothers" of the hyper-violent Islamic State – stirring up a hellish
"death squad" brew to kill ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, on Russia's border, reports Robert
Parry.
In a curiously upbeat account, The New York Times reports that Islamic militants have joined with
Ukraine's far-right and neo-Nazi battalions to fight ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. It
appears that no combination of violent extremists is too wretched to celebrate as long as they're
killing Russ-kies.
The
article by Andrew E. Kramer reports that there are now three Islamic battalions "deployed
to the hottest zones," such as around the port city of Mariupol. One of the battalions is headed
by a former Chechen warlord who goes by the name "Muslim," Kramer wrote, adding:
"The Chechen commands the Sheikh Mansur group, named for an 18th-century Chechen resistance
figure. It is subordinate to the nationalist Right Sector, a Ukrainian militia. … Right Sector
… formed during last year's street protests in Kiev from a half-dozen fringe Ukrainian nationalist
groups like White Hammer and the
Trident of Stepan Bandera.
"Another, the
Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi, using the 'Wolf's
Hook' symbol associated with the [Nazi] SS. Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol,
the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they loved their homeland
and hated the Russians."
As casually as Kramer acknowledges the key front-line role of neo-Nazis and white supremacists
fighting for the U.S.-backed Kiev regime, his article does mark an aberration for the Times and the
rest of the mainstream U.S. news media, which usually dismiss any mention of this Nazi taint as "Russian
propaganda."
During the February 2014 coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych, the late fascist
Stepan Bandera was one of the Ukrainian icons celebrated by the Maidan protesters. During World War
II, Bandera headed the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-B, a radical paramilitary movement
that sought to transform Ukraine into a racially pure state. At times coordinating with Adolf Hitler's
SS, OUN-B took part in the expulsion and extermination of tens of thousands of Jews and Poles.
Though most of the Maidan protesters in 2013-14 appeared motivated by anger over political corruption
and by a desire to join the European Union, neo-Nazis made up a significant number and spearheaded
much of the violence against the police. Storm troopers from the Right Sektor and Svoboda party seized
government buildings and decked them out with Nazi insignias and
a Confederate battle flag, the universal symbol of white supremacy.
Then, as the protests turned bloodier from Feb. 20-22, the neo-Nazis surged to the forefront.
Their well-trained militias, organized in 100-man brigades called "sotins" or "the hundreds," led
the final assaults against police and forced Yanukovych and many of his officials to flee for their
lives.
In the days after the coup, as the neo-Nazi militias effectively controlled the government, European
and U.S. diplomats scrambled to help the shaken parliament put together the semblance of a respectable
regime, although four ministries,
including national security, were awarded to the right-wing extremists in recognition of their crucial
role in ousting Yanukovych.
At that point, virtually the entire U.S. news media put on blinders about the neo-Nazi role, all
the better to sell the coup to the American public as an inspirational story of reform-minded "freedom
fighters" standing up to "Russian aggression." The U.S. media delicately stepped around the neo-Nazi
reality by keeping out relevant context, such as the background of national security chief Andriy
Parubiy, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991, blending radical Ukrainian nationalism
with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy was commandant of the Maidan's "self-defense forces."
Barbarians at the Gate
At times, the mainstream media's black-out of the brown shirts was almost comical. Last February,
almost a year after the coup, a New York Times
article about the government's defenders of Mariupol hailed the crucial role played
by the Azov battalion but managed to avoid noting its well-documented Nazi connections.
That article by Rick Lyman presented the situation in Mariupol as if the advance by ethnic Russian
rebels amounted to the barbarians at the gate while the inhabitants were being bravely defended by
the forces of civilization, the Azov battalion. In such an inspirational context, it presumably wasn't
considered appropriate to mention the Swastikas and SS markings.
Now, the Kiev regime has added to those "forces of civilization" - resisting the Russkie barbarians
- Islamic militants with ties to terrorism. Last September, Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Intercept,
reached
a vanguard group of these Islamic fighters in Ukraine through the help of his "contact in Turkey
with the Islamic State [who] had told me his 'brothers' were in Ukraine, and I could trust them."
The new Times article avoids delving into the terrorist connections of these Islamist fighters.
But Kramer does bluntly acknowledge the Nazi truth about the Azov fighters. He also notes that American
military advisers in Ukraine "are specifically prohibited from giving instruction to members of the
Azov group."
While the U.S. advisers are under orders to keep their distance from the neo-Nazis, the Kiev regime
is quite open about its approval of the central military role played by these extremists – whether
neo-Nazis, white supremacists or Islamic militants. These extremists are considered very aggressive
and effective in killing ethnic Russians.
The regime has shown little concern about widespread reports of "death squad" operations targeting
suspected pro-Russian sympathizers in government-controlled towns. But such human rights violations
should come as no surprise given the Nazi heritage of these units and the connection of the Islamic
militants to hyper-violent terrorist movements in the Middle East.
But the Times treats this lethal mixture of neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists as a good thing.
After all, they are targeting opponents of the "white-hatted" Kiev regime, while the ethnic Russian
rebels and the Russian government wear the "black hats."
As an example of that tone, Kramer wrote:
"Even for Ukrainians hardened by more than a year of war here against Russian-backed separatists,
the appearance of Islamic combatants, mostly Chechens, in towns near the front lines comes as
something of a surprise - and for many of the Ukrainians, a welcome one. … Anticipating an attack
in the coming months, the Ukrainians are happy for all the help they can get."
So, the underlying message seems to be that it's time for the American people and the European
public to step up their financial and military support for a Ukrainian regime that has unleashed
on ethnic Russians a combined force of Nazis, white supremacists and Islamic militants (considered
"brothers" of the Islamic State).
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many
of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections
to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For
details on this offer,
click
here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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."
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.
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."
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"
"...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". "
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".
(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??
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."
"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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
... 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
"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
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.
"...Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers."
... Ever since 9/11, the American people have operated under the quaint notion that all the violence
that the Pentagon and the CIA have been inflicting on people in foreign nations has an adverse effect
only over there. The idea has been that as long as all the death, torture, assassinations, bombings,
shootings, and mayhem were in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, Americans could
go pleasantly on with their lives, going to work, church, and fun sporting events where everyone
could praise and pray for the troops for "defending our freedoms" and "keeping us safe."
Through it all, the national-security state, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, has
done its best to immunize Americans from all the violence, death, and mayhem that they've been wreaking
on people over there.
Don't show the American people photographs of wedding parties in which brides and grooms and
flower girls have been blown to bits by a U.S. bomb or missile.
Hide those torture records at Abu Ghraib. Lock them away in a secret vault forever.
Destroy those torture videos and redact that torture report.
And above all, don't even think of keeping count of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Anything and everything to keep the American people from having to confront, assimilate, and process
the ongoing culture of violence that the national-security state has brought to people in other parts
of the world.
Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers.
As an aside, have you ever noticed that Switzerland, which is one of the most armed societies
in the world, is not besieged by a "war on terrorism" and by gun massacres? I wonder if it has anything
to do with the fact that the Swiss government isn't involved in an ongoing crusade to violently remake
the world in its image.
Ask any American whether all that death and destruction at the hands of the military and the CIA
is necessary, and he's likely to say, "Well, of course it is. People all over the world hate us for
our freedom and values. We've got to kill them over there before they come over here to kill us.
The war on terrorism goes on forever. I'm a patriot! Praise the troops!"
The thought that the entire scheme of ongoing violence is just one great big racket just doesn't
even occur to them. That's what a mindset of deference to authority does to people.
All that ongoing violence that has formed the foundation of America's governmental structure since
the totalitarian structure known as the national-security state came into existence after World War
II is at the core of the national sickness to which Rand Paul alludes.
And so is the extreme deference to authority paid to the national-security establishment by all
too many Americans who have converted the Pentagon and the CIA into their god - one who can do no
wrong as it stomps around the world killing, torturing, bombing, shooting, invading, maiming, and
occupying, all in the name of "national security," a ridiculous term if there ever was one, a term
not even found in the U.S. Constitution.
As I have long written, the national-security establishment has warped and perverted the values,
morals, and principles of the American people. This totalitarian structure that was grafted onto
our governmental system after World War II to oppose America's World War II partner and ally the
Soviet Union has stultified the consciences of the American people, causing them to subordinate themselves
to the will and judgment of the military (including the NSA) and the CIA and, of course, to surrender
their fundamental God-given rights to liberty and privacy in the quest to be "kept safe" from whoever
happens to be the official enemy of the day.
The discomforting fact is that the American people have not been spared the horrific consequences
of the ongoing culture of violence that the U.S. national-security establishment has brought to foreign
lands. The ongoing culture of violence that forms the foundation of the national security state -
killing untold numbers of people on a perpetual basis - has been a rotting and corrosive cancer that
has been destroying America from within and that continues to do so.
It's that ongoing culture of violence that brings out the crazies and the loonies, who see nothing
wrong with killing people for no good reason at all. In ordinary societies, the crazies and the loonies
usually just stay below the radar screen and live out their lives in a fairly abnormal but peaceful
manner. But in dysfunctional societies, such as ones where the government is based on killing, torturing,
maiming, and destroying people on a constant basis, the crazies and the loonies come onto the radar
screen and commit their crazy and loony acts of violence.
"...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."
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.
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:
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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
"... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
Jeb Bush
made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:
Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception
of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir
Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.
"When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of
a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right
now."
Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge
in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted
that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security,
and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling
or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because
the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory
in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia.
It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention
in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been
more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would
not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.
This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other
parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to
others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding
to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are
invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely
lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse
than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had
little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.
One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible
for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the
consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails
to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines
that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't
have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.
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.
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.
"...His partner in this long-running routine, Sen. Lindsey Graham, also reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove's
Mr. President, we must not
allow a mineshaft gap!" "
. "...It's a deadly fandango that places national security in the balance, while lawmakers play rhetorical
games, often crossing,
if not leaping, the usual boundaries of diplomatic propriety and control."
John McCain and Lindsey Graham try to rewrite history to vindicate the Iraq war, and blame
Obama for ISIS.
...McCain's widely known and tolerated flair for the dramatic now
places an "episode" that most Americans could not rightly pin down, much less explain without
the aid of Google, alongside slavery, the Trail of Tears, the federal crackdown on World War I-era
Bonus
Marchers, and the entire Vietnam War.
His partner in this long-running routine, Sen. Lindsey
Graham, also reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove's
Mr. President, we must
not allow a mineshaft gap!", laid out the latest talking points in an
interview about the ISIS
takeover of Ramadi in Iraq this month:
It's a predictable outcome of withdrawing all forces back in 2011…The military advised [Obama]
to leave 10,000 troops. When he refused to take their advice, everything you see before you is
a result of that big mistake.
Graham, McCain, and their fellow Republican hawks, energized by an election over a year away,
are once again using foreign policy overseas to bludgeon Obama, presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton, and by extension, the whole Democratic Party in the arena of domestic politics here
at home. It's a deadly fandango that places national security in the balance, while lawmakers
play rhetorical games,
often crossing,
if not leaping, the usual boundaries of diplomatic propriety and control.
"Imperial senators, basically that's what they are … playing this real life version of
Risk," said Matthew Hoh, an Iraq War veteran, referring to the strategy board game in an interview
with TAC.
Hoh was the highest U.S. official to resign in protest of the Afghanistan war policy when he
quit his State Department post in 2009.
Hoh says playing "real life Risk" is all about deception, and in the case of Iraq, a larder of
revisionist history, which, as McCain and Graham have demonstrated, involves an elaborate tweaking
of the story of how the U.S. withdrew from Iraq in 2011, and why. It also requires the ambitious
assumption that a) American forces had every right and opportunity to stay there indefinitely, and
b) there would be no consequences if they did so
...Negotiations reportedly wore on until the eleventh hour, but finally broke down when Maliki
could not promise criminal immunity for U.S. troops there. "Frankly, given that less than 20
percent of the Iraqi public wanted American troops to stay, and given the great resentment in the
Iraqi population …there wasn't much sympathy to grant Americans full legal immunities in the Iraqi
parliament," said former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey
in 2014. The withdrawal was complete in 2011.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter and TAC contributing
editor. Follow her on Twitter.
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."
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. ..."
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.
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.
…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".
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.
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".
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.
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:
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!
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.
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".
The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited
knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not?
That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange
rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners
get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary
4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries
and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market
positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may
change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved
with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of
that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered
the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and
it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use
of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine.
Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government
rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed
a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region
from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened...
Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup,
and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
"... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
"... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
"... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
"... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
"... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
"... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
"... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
"... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
"... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
"... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
"... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
"... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
"... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
"... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
"... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
"... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
"... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
"... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
"... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
"... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
"... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
"... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
"... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
"... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
"... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
"... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
"... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
"... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
"... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
"... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
"... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
"... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
"... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
"... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
"... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
"... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
"... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
"... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
"... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
"... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps
ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been
achieved?
For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that
were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely
happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into
the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems
in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts
at once.
Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western
corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.
Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better
shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of
the Kremlin's approaches.
They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately
zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.
People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up
a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow.
It was fairly obvious.
I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it
very hard for Russia to respond.
Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed
to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond
by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious
Putin would never do.
Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks
common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist
attacks against Macedonian authorities.
NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others
if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries
like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either
capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with
conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major
geopolitical defeat.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability
is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago,
and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would
require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing
to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
The West plays the short game, so initially it may look
like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn
out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.
1:..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented
towards Russia.This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will
affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some
products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production
of components to Russia.
2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia.True, but again
a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have
is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters,
but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those
swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That
is where they started.
3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of
this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off
and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite
efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military
equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans
that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to
weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil
is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively
banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its
billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the
plug
NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible.
It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper
tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed
to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an
aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late
1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to
make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.
4:the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations
is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable,
but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than
just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium
to long term.
This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine
is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage,
but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the
Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw
any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future
sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right
moment.
As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit
harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as
much as possible, only intervening when critical.
Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years
is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital
for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best
course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so
that they can just have a look around?
To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative.
If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must
be done.
In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!
No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has
played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The
science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake
to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is
insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be
taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly
stupid.
As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to
your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just
smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the
Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop
a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the
Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.
If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems
on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria.
What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the
world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems
with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That
is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the
US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously
better today.
As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia
occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last
a lot longer than the Ukraine does.
Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's
where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the
US to over-extend itself politically & financially.
The US want to do more but it can't
do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to
give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move
of some oil trading out of the US dollar.
And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created?
For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will
bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the
West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem
on their plate they can't quite manage?
I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic
than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone
a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine
Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West
understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and
one they are very careful in making.
As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough
for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors
and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon.
The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap
distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot
cheaper.
In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread
it far and wide:
Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment,
and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away,
that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago,
that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.
NATO has
not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit,
but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm
in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much
of anything but manage.
I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and
a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern
borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that
it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.
NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know
how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians
what a failure the promise of western largesse was.
That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some
black earth to expropriate.
My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do
blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made
a mistake.
That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia
west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing
the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early
days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.
The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not
only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt
western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and
garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west.
Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of
a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.
The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally
this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond
lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with
plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs
in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.
There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve
a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities
rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy;
however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western
businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business
in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.
A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:
"This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened
in this conflict and it will not be the last.
The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains
of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building
on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right
sector called their own during the maidan debacle.
The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll
there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children.
I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that
atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he
was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death?
He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could
not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.
Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned
to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed
in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were
too few to defend the berg.
The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and
well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not
morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest
assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either
individual or mass atrocities.
To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who
when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands
of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay
for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post
photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed?
Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They
are known.
I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative
few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member
of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and
with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice,
like revenge, is a dish best served cold.
As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU
over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being
said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not
going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember,
but don't complain, it's useless."
Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment
because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine
and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited
to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And
it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev
or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible.
Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."
I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have
had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will
probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but
with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known
anyway..
The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal.
But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It
is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.
I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that
hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged,
but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought
the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather
than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register
on those who get all their news from CNN.
Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other
who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate
proof that Tupak is alive
in Serbia
The election of Poland's new president spells
big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just
recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who
forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200
thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.
Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:
Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One
of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined
by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side
his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that
embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to
maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately,
what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient
degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other
parts of Western Ukraine?
This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk
the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective
in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the
preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?
"... 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. ..."
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.
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.
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).
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.
...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.
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
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.
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.
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].
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.
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… ####
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.
"...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,"
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.
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.
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 …
"... "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'," ..."
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.
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. ..."
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
Ukraine eyes strategic investors in sell-off of state-owned assets: Kiev
has drawn up a list of around 280 companies it hopes to privatise, earning up to 17 billion hryvnia
($821.26 million) in the process. The list includes three thermal power plants and 13 ports.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This piece is proposing a bit of a conspiracy theory; but also making a solid prediction,
that can proved or disproved in the short term.
The theory is this:
One of Vickie Nuland's tasks, in her recent trip to Kiev, was to groom a man named Sergei
Levochkin for the Prime Minister job. (to replace Yats).
Levochkin is a former Party of Regions type who was in Yanukovych government. Now he is
head of the so-called "Opposition Bloc".
Levochkin confirmed that, yes, he met with Nuland; and, yes, they discussed regulation of
the crisis in Donbass.
The theory is that Americans have not placed all their eggs in one basket; and that Opp Bloc
of former Regions is being groomed to take over Ukie government, since Porky & Co have failed
miserably. Nuland is said to be auditioning replacements for both Porky and Yats.
Again, this is all provable/disprovable, we just wait to see if it happens.
The more interesting aspect is: What will Russia do? Is Kremlin in on this conspiracy to throw
Porky under the bus (if indeed such a conspiracy exists)?
Everybody knows that Russia wasted years of time supporting Yanukovych government, and in fact
it was Russia that put all its eggs in Party of Regions basket. Will Russia now accept the return
of a basically Regions government; and if so, will they throw independent Donbass under the bus?
These are all questions that we await eagerly to see the answers.
The concept of American exceptionalism is as old as the United States, and it implies that the
country has a qualitative difference from other nations. This notion of being special gives Americans
the sense that playing a lead role in world affair is part of their natural historic calling. However
there is nothing historically exceptional about this: the Roman empire also viewed itself as a system
superior to other nations and, more recently, so did the British and the French empires.
On the topic of American exceptionalism, which he often called "Americanism", Seymour Martin Lipset
noted that "America's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarism, individualism,
populism and laissez-faire. The revolutionary ideology, which became American creed, is liberalism
in its eighteenth and nineteenth-century meaning. It departed from conservatism Toryism, statist
communitarianism, mercantilism and noblesse-oblige dominant in monarchical state-church formed cultures."
Naturally identifying America's system as a unique ideology, just like calling its successful colonial
war against Britain a revolution, is a fallacy. For one, America was never based on social equality,
as rigid class distinctions always remained through US history.
In reality, the US has never broken from European social models. American exceptionalism implies
a sense of superiority, just like in the case of the British empire, the French empire and the Roman
empire. In such imperialist systems, class inequality was never challenged and, as matter of fact,
served as cornerstone of the imperial structure. In American history, the only exception to this
system based on social inequality was during the post World War II era of the economic "miracle".
The period from 1945 to the mid 1970s was characterized by major economic growth, an absence of big
economic downturns, and a much higher level of social mobility on a massive scale. This time frame
saw a tremendous expansion of higher education: from 2.5 million people to 12 million going to colleges
and universities, and this education explosion, naturally, fostered this upward mobility where the
American dream became possible for the middle class.
Regardless of real domestic social progress made in the United States after the birth of the empire
in 1945, for the proponents of American exceptionalism - this includes the entire political class
- the myth of the US being defined as a "shining city on a hill" has always been a rationale to justify
the pursuit of imperialism. For example, when President Barack Obama addressed the nation to justify
the US military intervention in Libya, he said that "America is different", as if the US has a special
role in history as a force for good. In a speech on US foreign policy, at West Point on May 28, 2014,
Obama bluntly stated:
"In fact, by most measures, America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world.
Those who argue otherwise - who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership
slip away are misreading history. Our military has no peer…. I believe in American exceptionalism
with every fiber of my being."
In his book, Democracy In America, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville was lyrical in his propaganda-like
adulation of American exceptionalism, defining it almost as divine providence.
"When the earth was given to men by the Creator, the earth was inexhaustible. But men were
weak and ignorant, and when they had learned to take advantage of the treasures which it contained,
they already covered its surface and were soon obliged to earn by the sword an asylum for repose
and freedom. Just then North America was discovered, as if it had been kept in reserve by the
Deity and had risen from beneath the waters of the deluge", wrote de Tocqueville.
This notion, originated by the French author, and amplified ever since, which defined the US as
the "divine gift" of a moral and virtuous land, is a cruel fairy tale. It is mainly convenient to
ease up America's profound guilt. After all, the brutal birth of this nation took place under the
curse of two cardinal sins: the theft of Native American lands after committing a genocide of their
population; and the hideous crime of slavery, with slaves building an immense wealth for the few,
in a new feudal system, with their sweat, tears and blood.
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.
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?
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..
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.
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.
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..
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's Reuters which is the US lead news organization.
It's Josh Cohen who gets major coverage in the US, he's also one of the main USAID reps.
It clearly points out Putin was right and vindicates him.
It clearly points out the WW2 Ukrainian Insurgent army killed 80,000 Poles.
It talks about the current law to make the Nazi supporters honored.
It points out the Right Sector led Maidan.
It mentions the Ministerial positions of the fascists.
It mentions 'Cyberspace" which mean we are winning this information war.
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.
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.
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." ..."
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.
YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off
without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or
so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.
For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire,
and tugged hard, testing for explosives.
When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with
cutters.
Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill,
there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the
Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern
Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with
the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.
... ... ...
The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The
New York Times
The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided
by 300
United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.
Here in western
Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how
in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled
troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open
a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while
holding a rifle at the ready.
... ... ...
The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward
observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more
lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.
Photo
The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York
Times
Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat
skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had
already been in combat.
... ... ...
American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training
in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over
six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the
training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other
Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
"... 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." ..."
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.
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...
"... 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. ..."
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
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!
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.
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.
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 awayTurkish
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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).
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Balazs Jarabik, who is associated with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and who
focuses on Ukraine, has an
article titled "Ukraine: The War Must Go On?". It's a pertinent article because both sides are
re-arming and both sides are more skilled now at war. Renewed fighting, if serious war breaks out
again, will be more devastating than the earlier engagements. It will likely enter new areas and,
in the process, undermine Ukraine altogether.
Jarabik writes "As terrible as it sounds, Kyiv's endless dysfunction is the Kremlin's most powerful
ally in the current crisis-a point that is glossed over in Western policy debates on sending lethal
aid to Ukraine."
Critics of the libertarian positions on Ukraine should read and heed what the non-libertarian
Jarabik says about Kiev and Ukraine. U.S. and NATO aid, bank financing, training and military advice
are not helping Ukrainians. Quite the opposite.
The libertarian refrain calling for U.S. disengagement from Ukraine (and other of the Empire's
venues) strikes some as being either pro-Russian or not anti-Russian enough. This is a false conclusion
that doesn't follow from a non-interventionist stance. It only follows from a non-libertarian perspective
of supposing that the U.S. should be helping Ukraine achieve independence from Russian pressures.
But such so-called help is destroying Ukraine and promises worse to come.
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Both U.S. disengagement from Kiev and criticism of Kiev's war-making are policies that will help,
not harm, ordinary Ukrainians. Sons will not be drafted, ill-trained, ill-equipped and sent into
unwinnable and destructive wars. The government won't go bankrupt in the process. Huge debts won't
be levied on generations of Ukrainians. The currency won't crash, as it has, destroying the wealth
of anyone holding it, small savers or holders of debt denominated in that currency. Resources can
be put toward peaceful purposes. Similarly, people in Donbas won't face the severe destruction wrought
by war. Refugees can come home. People won't be driven from their homes. Population centers, ranging
from villages to major cities, won't be shelled.
The war-making and other related decisions are promoted by the U.S. and NATO. The U.S. is re-arming
one side and improving the weaponry. The Russians are re-arming the other side, and that side too
will bring in new ways of fighting. The level of destructiveness can only escalate as a consequence
of a U.S. and Kiev decision to bring Donbas back into Ukraine by military means.
Libertarian calls for the U.S. completely out of Ukraine are for the good of Ukrainians themselves,
although surely not all of them. This policy doesn't satisfy Ukrainian nationalists who insist on
union of west and east, come hell or high water. Hell it may be.
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:
Russia backward and unable to progress and development of the country.
In Russia there is no infrastructure.
Russia lives from the sale of oil and only.
Russia is financing all and with all the oil revenue.
Russia is very aggressive.
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!
Russia is aggressive towards the Baltic States and the Baltic States should be armed.
Tomorrow Russia will attack Estonia.
America has vital interests in Ukraine.
To return the Crimea to Ukraine is America's vital interests.
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?
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 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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."
"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."
The Washington Post's Michael Birnbaum invented a
new funny way to equalized victims and perpetrators of serious crimes:
MOSCOW - A pro-Russian Ukrainian journalist was gunned down in Kiev on Thursday, authorities said,
a day after a Ukrainian politician supporting Moscow was found dead.
The killing of Oles Buzyna, 45, raised fears of a new wave of back-and-forth violence in the
streets of Ukraine after a string of unsolved deaths that has touched both sides
of the conflict between Ukraine's Western-allied government and pro-Moscow separatists.
Indeed the "unsolved deaths" "touched both sides" with eleven people on one side getting murdered
while the other side covered up these murders as "suicides" and very likely also provided the killers.
Eight
politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S. inspired
coup, were killed as were three
journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
There is some curious connection between some of the recent killings and NATO. As RB
at NiqNaqprovides (recommended):
On Apr 14, a profile of Oles' Buzina was added to https://psb4ukr.org/ site (where Ukrainian government
encourages people to fink the authorities on the people suspected of separatism); on Apr 15, Oles'
Buzina was killed near his home with 4 shots. I (my correspondent – RB) looked up the
Web address where they posted Buzina's address, and found that it's hosted on a NATO server.
The Niqnaq post provides details and screenshots demonstrating the connection to NATO.
(A short take is also here.) I was myself researching the issue for MoA when I found that
Niqnaq post and I can confirm the findings and add a bit.
Two names and personal data of persons recently assassinated in Ukraine were posted on a "nationalist"
website shortly before those persons were killed. That website,
screenshot)
screenshot), is
headlined:
"Peacemaker"
RESEARCH CENTRE FEATURES OF CRIMES AGAINST UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY, PEACE, SECURITY AND
HUMANITY international law
Information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists,
separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers.
Next to some news pieces the site carries a list for download with some 7,700 names of "saboteurs"
and "terrorists".
On a first view the name "psb4ukr.org" is anonymously
registered through the U.S.
company Wild West Domains.
A "traceroute" command shows that Internet Protocol requests to the server "psb4ukr.org" end in
a datacenter in Dallas, Texas at dallas-ipc.com and the IP number 208.115.243.222.
A "nslookup" command with the input "psb4ukr.org" confirms in its output the registered IP Number
to be "208.115.243.222" (screenshot).
A reverse "nslookup" command with the input "208.115.243.222" provides the output "psb4ukr.nato.int".
(screenshot).
"nato.int" is the Internet domain namespace registered and reserved for NATO. Why is a server
for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been killed - registered
within the NATO Internet namespace?
After some additional research we find that the non-anonymous registration to "psb4ukr.org"
is to one Vladimir Kolesnikov, 98 Lenin St, Velyka Oleksandrivka, Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine.
Further searching for Vladimir Kolesnikov we
find that Mr. Kolesnikov has registered several other websites through Limestone Networks, Inc
in Dallas, Texas.
Some of these website seem to be concerned with crypto payment, teletraining and unrelated stuff.
Some others are related to the nasty "nationalist" side of the Ukraine conflict.
Operativ.info asks for tip offs about "saboteurs"
and "terrorists" and their operations while informnapalm.org
is a general "nationalist" news collection.
There is no hint of any NATO-relation in these other sides. A reverse nslookup like the one that
shows a relation like between "psb4ukr.org" and "psb4ukr.nato.int" does not deliver such results
for the other website registered to Mr. Kolesnikov.
One possible explanation for the "psb4ukr.nato.int" lookup result might be that the website was
originally build or tested within the NATO namespace and later transferred outside without cleaning
up some of the original name references.
Posted by b on April 17, 2015 at 03:06 PM |
Permalink
james | Apr 17, 2015 5:45:27 PM | 1
thanks b.. any connection to nato is really riveting if true.. the fact all the people murdered
are opposed to the present gang in kiev speaks volumes as well.. i hope some western msm will
pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.. it will be more bs like the wapo is famous for..
spewing propaganda 24/7, these media outlets make the prvada of previous times look like amateurs..
jfl | Apr 17, 2015 6:33:22 PM | 2
Excellent work, b. It is true that the MSM sill never publish anything like this ... but it
is also true that the 'market' for news has been bifurcated at this point : those who want to
know the truth are engaged in the search for it on their own and those who definitely do NOT want
to know the truth are reading, viewing the MSM.
Attending to the MSM has become an act of complicity with the crimes of the empire in itself.
JerseyJeffersonian | Apr 17, 2015 6:43:55 PM | 3
So, death squads on the menu?
Ah, takes me back to those golden times in Iraq, El Salvador...
Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17, 2015 11:55:44 PM | 5
I've come to appreciate the value of the "both sides" meme.
It's a 24ct guarantee that USrael or one of their "good friends" has been caught perpetrating
inexcusable atrocities, upon civilians, which need to be urgently diluted.
The "Israelis" have turned it into an art form - an absolute necessity given that ALL the victims
of the Shitty Little Country's insane anti-Palestinian hubris have been civilians.
It's quite clever in a cowardly, sneaky, "Israeli" kind of way...
Fete | Apr 18, 2015 12:41:56 AM | 604/17/2015 19:57
Russian Spring
Commenting an appeal of Donbass community to the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, Presidents
of Russia and France, Vladimir Putin and François Hollande as well as Angela Merkel, the Chancellor
of Germany, the Chairman of Peoples Council of Donetsk Republic Andrey Purgin assumed that today's
Kiev moves toward Ukrainian Nazism.
"Mass arrests and intimidation are common. Those who disagree to live with the Ukrainian
ethnic nazism are prosecuted. The most active ones are incarcerated", asserted Purgin
According to him, thousands are jailed for their political convictions.
"Of course, there are calls to (international) community, to Merkel, Europe to interfer.
Unfortunately, those live in framework of different (double) standards and are not going to
do anything. Instead, they call to yield to Ukraine, where arrests and burning houses are taking
place", added Purgin.
@b
Why is a server for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been
killed - registered within the NATO Internet namespace?
Russian Defense Minister summed it up very well, at Moscow's annual security conference.
"The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev
into their orbit..."
JerseyJeffersonian@3 is right on target reminding us of the infamous "Death Squads" in El Salvador
and Iraq. Targeting of opposition figures by parallel security forces killing not-so anonymously,
is an integral part of any regime hell-bent on imposing by force a quasi-fascist form of government.
The purpose is to inflict terror on a massive scale, a psychological war that aims at paralyzing
others from opposing the regime. It is the ABC of any counterinsurgency manual, and it clearly
shows the hand of the CIA behind the systematic killing of Yanukovich allies, perceived or real
pro-Russian individuals/organizations/regional or city governments, as it happened recently in
Kharkov, and a couple of days ago in Odessa.
This is lustration on a higher level, not just firing from government posts all of those
considered "opposition," not enough for the Ukrainian neo-nazis, they have to be physically eliminated.
As bastard children of nazi ideologues, they have to follow their German masters in their
"purification" of society (lustration from Latin = purification), cleansing it from any elements
that could endanger the "purity" of their new fascist dystopia.
The WaPo, a mouthpiece of Neoconland/Deep State, is an accomplice to murder not only in Ukraine,
and has played a crucial role white-washing the crimes of the criminal Kiev junta from day one.
Shame on you, Michael Birnbaum, you're justifying the slaughter of innocents just to keep a miserable
job writing horseshit, and killing them a second time with your blatant lies.
i hope some western msm will pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.
The western msm have picked up on it but to claim that an anti-Kiev oligarch who funded the Party
of Regions is killing them off to cover his tracks over that funding.
An organisation called the 'Ukrainian Insurgent Army' has claimed responsibility for the murders
of Chechetov, Peklushenko, Miller, Kalashnikov and Buzina.
I second your recommendation. I spotted some short extracts at Russia Insider,
and I share their recommendation that you read the whole piece. Here's a small sample, .
Q: In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia justified?
Well, I can't think otherwise.
I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in the '90s. I've been saying since
February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev] that the 1990s is when everything
went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So you need at least that much history,
25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier....
Q: I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist
campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.
But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington,
Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't
call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations
because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with
murderous intent....
So the United States has been deeply complicit in the destruction of these eastern cities and
peoples....
Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who
are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine....
Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut our eyes to a humanitarian
crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether you like or don't like
Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of American policy and
the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate this.
See also his comments on Yeltsin. Increasing ill and under the thumb of the oligarchs, he cozied
up to Washington. Cohen reports that Medvedev, a number of years ago, advised that Zyuganov of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation had actually won the election that gave Yeltsin his final
term.
Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 11:04:39 AM |
12
New detentions of peaceful protesters in Odessa: 30 people reported detained at Odessa rally
for cultural autonomy and a peaceful solution to the civil conflict: "The People's Council [of Bessarabia]
is the grassroots, peaceful initiative."
So far the People's Council of Bessarabia is looking like an effort to use what legal space seems
to exist under current junta law to organize "within the system," while the Odessa People's Republic
appears to be extralegal and separatist. But the reality is that there is no legal space within fascism
for any opposition to organize:
Posted by: Vintage Red | Apr 18, 2015 11:43:21 AM |
13
jj, lw, bb at 3, 7 & 10 --
Extrajudicial repression has been a staple of the ruling class since antiquity. See the murder
of Tiberius Gracchus in the 2nd. cent. BC. But along with creating "insurgencies" (Nicaragua, Afghanistan)
the Amercan Century has really made it one of its art forms. A sort of "Abstract Repressionism;"
we're disinclined to think of the human cost, let alone accept responsibility for it.
If you want some good fantasy fiction writing, I'd recommend the Kyiv Post's weirdly informative
article,
Murders of two journalists, ex-lawmaker spook Kyiv. It begins, "The atmosphere was spooky in
Kyiv on April 16 as news broke about the murder of a third prominent person in four days." Quite
lit'ry, weren't it? It's the Party of Regions, it's the Russian, it's a scheme to disrupt Victory
Day.
It goes on to some highly negative spin about Kalashnikov and Buzina, and finishes with short
accounts of rash of "suicides" amongst regime opponents.
Meanwhile, repression is spreading in
Odessa. A mixed group of local Maidan activists, police, and PravSek militiamen detained protesters.
They wanted a free trade zone and were unhappy with utility prices and pensions. A clear and present
danger. Whereabouts presently unknown. -- VR at 13, just saw yrs. I'll have to ck'out the NeoNazi
bit.
VR -- well that was depressing. In part 'cause it lead me to what the link called "Drunk With
Permissiveness: Nazis Execute Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." The page itself is a little
more mundane,
Ukrainian
Insurgent Army Claims Responsibility for Death of Reporter Buzina. It provides further details
than the Fort Russ account above.
It links the rise in violence to the recent proclamation of the collaborators as victors over
their fascist patrons, taken as a green light for a bit of the ultra-violence. They promise "a ruthless
insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and Moscow henchmen..." They seem as
good as their word. Too bad....
These incidents are so historically familiar. When reading your article b, I couldn't help thinking
about Italy and the murders and terrorism that occurred through out the 1950's to 1980's. Incorrectly,
many of our contemporaries believe that the Gladio which was created by NATO, the UK and the US is
defunct. As revealed by Professor Daneile Ganser, Gladio is a live and well and operates globally.
Yes, NATO is the culprit. Just as it was the instrumental culprit that was used as a tool in Kosovo
for US interests. As for the monsters in Kiev, Reinhard Gehlen, one of the Nazi architects of the
stay-behind-network would be proud.
en1c at 15 -- Very droll! It's been renamed "plausible deniability" to suite modern sensibilities.
vr at 13 -- I followed your link.
Depressing, in part 'cause I followed this link there, "Drunk With Permissiveness: Nazis Execute
Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." It provides further details than the Fort Russ
item cited at 14. Folks will have to find it on their own, I'm afraid. It wouldn't post my link from
Sputnik -- though the link in the preview worked. Others have had that problem.
"We are unfolding a ruthless insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and
Moscow henchmen...." They claim five murders, including Kalashnikov and Buzina. So they look to be
as good as their word. Too bad.
Thank you for your links, CTuttle @ 8. I don't know Stephen Cohen very well, but I took a dislike
to Katherine his wife way back when the Nation came out so strongly against Ralph Nader as a candidate,
and seeing her on Charlie Rose didn't warm me to her either. There are some folk on the 'left' who
need to come right out and admit they have been wrong to endorse anti-common-folk principles in the
past, due to the damage they have caused by supporting the oligarchs.
They are taking a page out of Putin's book: he was in government during the Yeltsin era when policies
were strongly skewed to get along with US oligarchies and Russia's own. Putin has changed course,
no two ways about it, and his people as a consequence love him. I just hope these folk will have
the same intention - Katherine, you will have to stop sniping at Ralph if you want us to love you.
The problem of Ukrainian nationalism is that they do not have "democratic template", heroes of
the past were hetmans, otamans and fascists. To be patriotic, you have to be bloody minded. So patriots
are murdering enemies of the people, and the West gives green light by giving aid and not raising
stink. [disclamer: I do not despise patriotism, but like love and religion, it can motivate excesses
including murder, mass murder, lies, mass lies and so on, emotional attachment can be a positive
force, but as we know, it is not always the case. Below, "patriot" describes the self-assessment.]
The Newsweek story
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/17/ukraine-plagued-succession-unlikely-suicides-former-ruling-party-320584.html
that b found is extremely symptomatic. American patriots in the media are following the official
clues how to cover stories from the confusing lands outside our borders. Apparently, in the case
of Ukraine, one has to follow explanations of Ukrainian patriots. And the version plied in Newsweek
was that an oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, is ordering murders of his former confidants and benefactors
to "remove witnesses", somehow failing to consider the following clues: murders are being covered
up by the current authorities, the minister in charge of police is a fascist (according to Guardian,
"there is only one fascist in Ukrainian cabinet"), and Akhmetov is not allied with the current authorities.
Since 1945, members of UPA and related organizations were cooperating with CIA, so when American
government want to find reliable familiar faces in Ukraine they will always start with "fascists".
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat weird
disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically, in
Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist" (for parochial reason,
as they murdered ca. 100,000 Poles).
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into "moderate
mayhem", contrasting with much more grandiose approach advocated by GOP and neocons (who can be Democrats
and Republicans).
In 1976, journalist Peter Watson was at a NATO conference in Oslo, when a U.S. Navy psychologist,
Dr. Thomas Narut, from the U.S. Naval Hospital in Naples told Watson and New Jersey psychologist
Dr. Alfred Zitani, that the Navy sought men to train as assassins in overseas embassies. The following
is from the London Sunday Times, "The soldiers who become killers," September 8, 1974, but reproduced
from a conspiracy site, as the original, and most references to it, plentiful even when I first
read about it some years ago, are limited now to a few dozen conspiracy sites. The story is also
told at some length in Watson's book (out of print), War on the Mind: The Military Uses and
Abuses of Psychology, published by Basic Books in 1978.
[Narut's] naval work involved establishing how to induce servicemen who ma[y] not be naturally
inclined to kill, to do so under certain conditions. When pressed afterwards as to what was
meant by "combat readiness units," he explained this included men for commando-type operations
and – so he said – for insertion into U.S. embassies under cover, ready to kill in those countries
should the need arise. Dr. Narut used the word "hitmen" and "assassin" of these men.
The method, according to Dr. Narut, was to show films specially designed to show people
being killed and injured in violent ways. By being acclimated through these films, the men
eventually became able to dissociate any feelings from such a situation. Dr. Narut also added
that U.S. Naval psychologists specially selected men for these commando tasks, from submarine
crews, paratroops, and some were convicted murderers from military prisons. Asked whether he
was suggesting that murderers were being released from prisons to become assassins, he replied:
"It's happened more than once."
"For the first time, U.S. officials acknowledge that in 1965 they systematically compiled comprehensive
lists of Communist operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres. As many as 5,000 names
were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those
who had been killed or captured, according to the U.S. officials," Kathy Kadane wrote for South
Carolina's Herald-Journal on May 19, 1990. [Kadane's article also appeared in the San Francisco
Examiner on May 20, 1990, the Washington Post on May 21, 1990, and the Boston Globe on May 23,
1990.]
The Indonesian mass murder program was based in part on experiences gleaned by the CIA in the
Philippines. "US military advisers of the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) and the CIA
station in Manila designed and led the bloody suppression of the nationalist Hukbong Mapagpalaya
ng Bayan," notes Roland G. Simbulan (Covert Operations and the CIA's Hidden History in the Philippines).
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat
weird disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically,
in Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist"
One often hears Novorossiyans and Russians saying that the present Banderites are actually worse
than the German Nazis were. I concur with that view.
As for American attitudes to Ukie fascism, that's not hard to understand. All you have to think
about is the US training death squads in Central America. Fascist thugs are a tool of US foreign
policy, in the same way that Islamist terrorists are. This is now a commonplace in the progressive
blogosphere.
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into
"moderate mayhem"
I recently ran across an interview witb a Ukrainian political scientist who had to flee to Moscow,
in which he said that Europeans are finally cottoning on to the true nature of the Kiev regime, so
the US no longer has any reason to restrain the fascists. Hence the recent slew of assassinations
and terror. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up the link.)
Hey, thanks, man. I forgot it was a video. I just remembered it being in Russian, which confused
me. Well worth watching, IMO. Americans have no idea of what Russians think.
To repeat myself, the prevailing Russian view (and with the Internet, the collapse of communism,
and Putin's revival of Russia, I think that pretty much all Russians are on the same page except
for the 10% or less of the Russians who are "liberals") seems to be that the EU was totally eager
to make Ukraine an economic colony of the West, but unlike the US, it does not want war in Ukraine.
So the views of the US and the EU on the Ukraine diverge significantly, although net everyone here
thinks that. (Of course, Russian policy towards the Ukraine since the coup has been largely predicated
on that.)
And thanks for the second link.
His change of view is prompted by the law passed by the Ukrainian Parliament on April 9
glorifying World War.
It was pretty predictable that this would happen eventually. And then it turns out that Poles are
saying what Russians have been saying since last May:
Their savagery was beyond human imagination. Nazi Germany did not come up with what those Ukrainians
were doing
The American public has no idea of this. (In Europe, it's probably only England and the pesky Balts.)
"Poles know what's going on" ... it is more complex than that. The government and more established
media took very pro-American and anti-Russian perspective. The main opposition party build its current
set of slogans around anti-Russian paranoia. That said, in Communist times the issue of the massacres
of Poles in Volhynia and other regions with mixed population was almost hidden by the authorities,
but now it is common knowledge, and after the law acknowledging the perpetrator as heroes the critique
of the government is increasingly mainstream.
In particular, the U-turn of Gen. Skrzypczak is related to perceived "slap in the face". Polish
president made a speech to Ukrainian parliament with very warm support, and the law that is extremely
irritating to Poles was passed "few hours later", and that was duly noted by leftist opposition in
the Parliament. That is not insignificant, because there are good chances that the ruling party will
be forced into a coalition with those people.
As nationalists go, Ukrainian ones seem worse than most. The last election were preceded with
massive nationwide intimidation campaign and few little massacres. The really have a cult of force
and violence, which is reflected in putting boxers in the parliament, and -- surprise, surprise --
getting fist fights in that parliament. The lie compulsively -- recall American senators who got
photos taken in Georgia as the proof of Russian columns in Ukraine (see
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Franz_Roubaud._Count_Argutinsky_crossing_the_Caucasian_range._1892.jpg
). They seem to care nothing about the economy, instead, they want to eliminate Communism and Russian
language. Poor Ukrainian people seemed to have the choice of hopelessly corrupt and hopelessly insane,
so kicking out the previous corrupt lot is not as much of an improvement as Western liberals (and
the Russian emigrants who are cited in the mainstream media) perceive.
Thanks for the link to the Polish military adviser. Links like that, where a guy with impeccable
'pro-West' credentials says the right things about Ukraine, can be used to persuade our 'normal,
conventional' friends.
About European Union Army: there is a whiff of hilarity there. On one hand, the dangers from ISIS
and Russia are both quite remote, so they are not treated seriously. The force being pencilled is
about as large as the part of Ukrainian army that was encircled in Debaltsevo (should there be a
Wiki entry "Debaltsevo debacle"?). Of course, it makes some sense of practicing coordination of national
units so it is not a moronic project, but a very smallish project with very outsized among of debates,
announcements, analysis and so on.
While Europe has few problems defending itself against some putative onslaught, "projecting force"
is another matter. The French can do it in Chad, Mali etc., but how large a European Corps should
be to make a difference in conflicts between local nationalists of Georgia and Ukraine with Russian-supported
internal opponents? It is like trying to defend Paraguay against the forces of Triple Alliance: we
could promise economic sanctions on Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay would they invade Paraguay again,
but above all, we would urge Paraguay not to pick fights with the neighbors. (Incidentally, currently
Paraguay has a "pro-Western" government, and the three former opponents, "anti-Western", so it is
a good case study for comparisons.)
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 19, 2015 9:05:36 AM |
34
side board
On : Eight politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S.
inspired coup, were killed as were three journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
I suspect there are many names of murdered unknown, unlisted.
Political 'covert' or open, blatant assassinations are unfortunately normal in such situations.
Tallying them is arduous, because the murderous impulse is reflected right down into the street,
it is not just a State - Power - Corp enterprise.
Viktor, 33, son of Viktor Yanukovych died in March 2015, in an accident on Lake Baikal. His vehicle,
with 6 on board, went through the ice, 5 survived, he died. He was the driver.
I'm not advocating he should be added to that list. Abandonment (one article suggested that all
scrambled to save themselves thus leaving Viktor with no help..) is part of that…
Just to say, that lists like this are dodgy and depend on the MSM, snippets from blogs and the
like. Viktor Junior might easily have been included, his death is exremely suspicious, etc. Or it
might be considered a typical rich son demise due to hubris, stupidity, assumed invicibility
forging ahead in a risky 'sport.'
Lone Wolf at 29 -- "Land of Confusion" is a good call, suits the time now better than it did before.
Unfortunately the vid you linked to was not available in my loc. But I happen to have it in my browser
history, for anyone that missed their daily dose (or yearly allotment) of
Genesis. And let me throw
in my favorite early Peter Gabriel track,
Here Comes the Flood. The
problems of global warming give it a different meaning now than in 80's. Best live version, IMHO.
"It'll be those who gave their island to survive...."
I don't think that there's much doubt that the Apollo program was America's pinnacle. (As is the
case with other great human achievements, it took a German to make it happen.) Compared to when America
made it to the moon, the country is now absolutely pitiful and pathetic, and I think everyone understands
that on one level or another.
I read up on the Apollo program at Wikipedia recently. It really was a mind boggling achievement.
Think of the self-confidence those scientists and engineers must have had to work out such a project,
when no one had any experience of being in space. No wonder there is a conspiracy theory that it
was all a hoax. (Of course, the Russians deserve some credit even here, since it was they who provided
the motivation to the Americans to get to the moon.)
How could America fall so low from such a peak? To hazard a guess, what made the Apollo program
possible was the inheritance from the US WW II effort. Not just Werner von Braun, but also central
economic planning and the restraint of avarice by a sense of national purpose.
Perhaps America's fate was sealed when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. That made
the dollar an international reserve currency that could be printed without limit, removing any pressure
from the US to be economically competitive or have a manufacturing base. Thus the current situation,
in which the main way that the US interacts with the outside world is by waging one war after another,
all to keep the dollar in place.
And finally, since we're sharing music videos again, here is an 80s antidote to Genesis:
P. Berman at 33 -- While I've not followed it too closely (I stay busy watching the Banderaists),
the problem of the EuroForce is puzzling. It's the kind of rapid reaction force that the French have
had for decades with Foreign Legion -- professional interventionists. And as they were volunteers,
often foreign, little political cost for use.
So you'd think in principle it's well with the the organizational and logistical capabilities
of the Eurozone. Clearly the problems are political, around domestic sovereignity and foreign entanglement.
As well as the one you raise, who will it be used against, and where?
I'm not sure the Paraguay analogy fits, but I'd have to bone up on that one. I'm glad that we've
drawn someone capable of bringing it up, good fit or bad. I always find it hard to think of land-locked
Paraguay has having been a power frightful enough to unite its neighbors against it in the late 1800's.
The main source of power of the Ukrainian military machine... is in its reliance on wide array
of means of waging war in pursuit of "Ukrainianness".
This machine is based on lies, cruelty,
direct terror, the use of forbidden weapons (I think that if the regime had nuclear weapons it
would have used them by now), and the lowest imaginable methods of warmaking, such as the destruction
of the civilian population, hostage-taking, torture, and the murder of prisoners of war and opponents....
It is not especially subordinate to the political leadership, but instead is purposed for,
to some extent or another, the destruction of everything that does not fit into the "one state-one
nation-one idea" conception.
The power of the Ukrainian military machine also resides in the fact that it is backed by the
entire "civilized world" which is rendering Kiev moral, political, financial, military, and legal
support.
He goes on to note that the Ukrainians have no effective leadership, capable of inspiring the
ranks to sacrifice and victory. This is in part due no cohesive, appealing ideology.
As translator J. Hawk points out about Ukrainian nationalism, "Everyone who's ever adopted it,
lost. They did not merely lose badly, they lost ugly, and made the ideology appear even more despicable
and monstrous than it was before." Having cut themselves off from the Russian and Soviet past, they're
left with Bandera and the OUN-UPA atrocities as models of "Ukrainainness."
I sadly expect this run of bad luck on the part of the heroes of the Ukraine will continue.
If you're trying for true anonymity, you've already failed because this web site records IP addresses
of all who post, unless you've already sought ways to block or falsify your IP address from the very
beginning.
Equally email access has the same problem: irrespective of what information the email provider
requires you to give, all a surveillance agency would need would be to access the IP addresses from
which a given account is logged into.
True, the IP address isn't necessarily very accurate - typically in the 3-5 mile range - but additional
filtering can narrow that down considerably, especially if traces are then put on said IP address
to look for patterns of behavior (times of day a target typically uses the internet, writing/grammar
patterns, lists of web sites frequented, etc).
I am not trying for true anonymity. I just don't want my identity to be obvious to any fascist
(at this current point in history, the word "fascist" is more or less synonymous with "Ukrainian")
idiot who might be reading this blog.
@ALL:
If Atlantos were civilized, they would commit harikiri: Bridge Burning: EU to Bring Antitrust
Charges against Gazprom http://t.co/8TrQ4LWoze
On a darker note, here's a very well-made threat for you. Security forces say
"Ukrainophobes" ought to "lower their rhetoric to zero". Senior SBU investigator Vasiliy Vovk,
speaking officially, said "I think that... when we are practically at war... we should not have people...
who are speaking out against Ukraine and against Ukrainianness. I advise them to do it because nothing
good will come of it."
When asked if he could define "Ukrainophobia," Vovk said "No. But we know what we are talking
about."
"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit
from it."
George Orwell
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of
adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.
Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking
conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was
clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'
It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état
is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same
people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable
and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may
lag.
Follow the money...
GlobalResearch
Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
by JP Sottile
As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP
Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a
gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.
The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double
Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.
On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence
Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning
of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.
That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.
Business confidence never faltered
Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal
with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future
to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...
"... The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment. ..."
"... I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. ..."
Ukraine will be a consolidated fascist state without an economy. Right. It was mentioned elsewhere
that the only thing keeping the regime in power is the war. It sure isn't the economy. But eventually
the economic decline will break the bubble.
The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were
expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association
agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment.
So this ridiculous delusion is going to break down. But delusions are very resilient things.
I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan.
In a sense it already is with various oligarchs controlling bits of territory and sort of cooperating
in Kiev. Elections are not much more than a Afghan Jirga.
Still, it is interesting to see Russia
play the long game, the latest being a $285 three month gas contract with Kiev. When the Ukraine
finally implodes, Russia can clearly point out how it could have pulled the plug at any time it
wanted but it didn't because it has the best interests of its closest neighbor in mind. It also
sets a benchmark for all the promises from the EU and US to be compared to, the latter far more
likely to creatively reinterpret supposedly solid agreements than Russia especially if Kiev doesn't
sing from the same hymnbook 200%. It is also a warning to Berlin and the EU – we pull the plug
and it's all yours baby!
Yes, the people of Ukraine will never stand for this ridiculous substitution – a goose-stepping
Nazi police state in place of the cushy streets-paved-with-gold paradise they were led to expect
in exchange for their support for Maidan and the coup. They would probably put up with anything
if it meant widespread prosperity, but they are indisputably much worse off now than they were
prior to The Great Ukrainian Leap Forward and the trend is remorselessly downward for at least
another year – even the IMF
forecasts a considerably worse contraction of a further 10% rather than the 6% it forecast
earlier. And that's with the most lipstick The New Atlanticist – a relentlessly pro-western publication
whose current headlines include Wesley Clark's prediction of a Russian Spring offensive, the manifestly
ridiculous contention that "Putin's war against Ukraine" has had the effect of uniting Ukrainians,
and Russia's paranoid fantasies about the west representing a threat are all in its head – can
put on it. Moreover, there is likely to be zero growth in 2016 as well. That assessment probably
assumes certain realities that do not now exist, such as Kiev bringing the east back under its
thumb, rather than it slipping further from its control and perhaps even expanding its territory.
About two and a half thousand Ukrainians surrounded the US embassy in Kiev on the first of April. People who disagree with
the appointment of foreigners to the Ukrainian government, as well as the intervention of the Americans and Europeans in the public
administration of the country, holding banners saying "We are not cattle!" And they made sounds imitating animals.
Besides the protesters braying and bleating, they were eating cabbage, which was distributed by the organizers of the protest.
They also kept two-meter carrots with the symbols of the European Union. By the end of the demonstration of dissent Kiev residents
pelted the US embassy with manure.
It is noteworthy that the video from the protest was removed from all the Ukrainian sites and users were blocked. Local journalists
hardly covered the event.
It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era,
where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces",
National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic
dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in
the Western Hemisphere.
So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa,
in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators
against their own respective peoples.
And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant
and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance
US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!
Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the
Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting
of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for
the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn
from local fascists.
en1c at 1
I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort
Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.
Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of
political repression. And here is a comprehensive
guide to their methods.
There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military
defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of
its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start
of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living
standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine
after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.
I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.
Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists
excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular
designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".
Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian
side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately
thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange
provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.
According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of
Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire
from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces
are installed.
jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13
@9
The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the
East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing
to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine
... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep
everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.
I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last
100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle
100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from.
And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way
to go.
It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with
Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"
ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16
"US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing
the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft,
and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected
- all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be
stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen
and sold.
Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord
support.
"Council of Europe
report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests
are a total shambles and are going nowhere."
Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia
and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.
The alleged
intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia
will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that.
These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.
But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev
forces in the east.
So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces
in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept
a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.
The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO
threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.
Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters
and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.
@31,32
Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played.
Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?
I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?
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?
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.
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.
"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."
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":
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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?
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 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.....
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.
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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."
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!
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:
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:
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.
There are Serbs and Greeks still living in eastern Ukraine. Did Stalin settle them there?
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.
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?
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…
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:
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/
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!
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".
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.
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."
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".
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
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".
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."
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?
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 !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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):
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
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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 –
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:
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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) !!!
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.
(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."
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"?
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."
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.
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...
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.
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.
Before & After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
The "Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.
There is a double white stripe on the Acatsiya. It is Kiev regime equipment.yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:16 pmThe Ukrainian flag is on the left on the oil drum, below the tree, and just to the left of the man.yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:18 pm
