Tag Archives: US overthrew Ukrainian government

The May 2nd Odessa Massacre: Why Obama’s Coup-Regime Still Runs Ukraine

By Eric Zuesse
May 01, 2015
Global Research

 

 odessa tragedyThe May 2nd Ukrainian massacre of anti-regime pamphleteers last year at the Odessa Trade Unions Building, burning these pamphleteers alive there, was crucial to the Obama Administration’s solidification of its control over Ukraine. That massacre was designed to, and it did, terrorize the residents in all areas of Ukraine which had voted overwhelmingly for the man whom Obama had just ousted, Viktor Yanukovych. Especially in the Donbass region, Yanokovych had received 90%+ of the votes. In Odessa, he had received three-quarters of the votes. (Later will be explained why this terror against the residents of such regions was necessary for Obama’s purpose of solidifying his control over Ukraine’s government.)

So, the shocking methods of executing these people, and its being done in public and with no blockage of video images being recorded of these events by their many witnesses, and with the newly-installed Obama government in Kiev doing nothing whatsoever to prosecute any of these horrific murderers, there was a clear message being sent to the people who had voted for Yanukovych: If you resist the new authorities in any way, this is how you will be treated by them. This is how you will be treated (and that video was posted to the Internet by the perpetrators and their supporters, by headlining, “48 Russian Subversives Burned To Death In Fire At Trade Unions Building Fire In Odessa,” so that any other ‘Russian Subversives’ would have no doubt. However, those victims’ identities were subsequently published, and all of the victims were actually Odessa locals, none were Russians. The perpetrators were racist fascists, after all; and, so, being a ‘Russian’ meant, to them, being from a hated ethnicity, not necessarily being a citizen of Russia.) Terror was the obvious purpose here, and Obama was behind it, but nazis were in front of it, and they were proud of their handiwork — proud enough to film it and then to display it to the public.

If the President that you had voted for were subsequently to be overthrown in an extremely bloody coup — or even if it had happened in an authentic revolution — then how would you feel? And, if, two months later, people who were peacefully printing and distributing flyers against the illegally installed replacement regime were publicly treated this way, then would you want to be ruled by that regime?

Yanukovych had been elected in 2010 in an election that was declared free and fair by international observers; and, furthermore, according to wikipedia, ”All exit polls conducted during the final round of voting reported a win for Viktor Yanukovych over Yulia Tymoshenko.[162][163][164].” But, starting in Spring of 2013, which was as soon as Obama got into position all of his key foreign-affairs appointees for his second Presidential term, after the 2012 U.S. election, the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine immediately started organizing, for Maidan square in Kiev, public demonstrations to bring Yanukovych down, and they placed at the head of this operation the co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy, a man who had long studied Hitler’s methods of political organization. The troops, actually mercenaries, that provided the snipers who fired down onto the demonstrators and police in Maidan square in Kiev in February 2014 and pretended to be from Yanukovych’s security forces, were trained not by Parubiy but instead by Dmitriy Yarosh, who was the head of Ukraine’s other large racist-fascist, or nazi, organization, the Right Sector, whose CIA-and-oligarch-backed army numbered probably between 7,000 and 10,000. Yarosh selected the best of them for this operation. Whereas Parubiy was the main political organizer and trainer of Ukraine’s far-right, Yarosh was the main military organizer and trainer of Ukraine’s far-right.

So, Obama’s operation to oust Yanukovych was fully dependent upon Ukraine’s far-right, which was the only nazi movement that still retained deep and strong roots anywhere in Europe after World War II. Obama built his takeover of Ukraine upon people like this. As is clear there, they were very well trained. Yarosh had been training them for more than a decade. (He had been doing it even prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union.) Yarosh had carefully studied successful coups; he knew how to do it. Just as Obama had very skillfully selected his political campaign team for his 2008 White House run, he very carefully selected his American team for what would become the chief feature of his second-term foreign policy: his war against Russia, central to which was his campaign to install rabid haters of Russia into control of Ukraine, right next door to Russia (in the hope of ultimately placing missiles there, against Russia). He had groomed Dick Cheney’s former foreign-affairs advisor Victoria Nuland as the spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s State Department (Nuland and Clinton were also personal friends of each other, so she was a skillful choice for this post), and then he boosted Nuland in the second term to the State Department post which oversaw all policymaking on Ukraine. Likewise Obama boosted Geoffrey Pyatt into the Ambassadorship in Ukraine, as the operative there to carry out Nuland’s instructions. Nuland made the decision to base the Maidan demonstrations upon the political skill of Paribuy and the paramilitary muscle of Yarosh. They headed her Ukrainian team.

Wikipedia says of Parubiy, and of Obama’s other Ukrainian operatives:

Parubiy co-led the Orange Revolution in 2004.[5][11] In the 2007 parliamentary elections he was voted into theUkrainian parliament on an Our Ukraine–People’s Self-Defense Bloc ticket. He then became a member of the deputy group that would later become For Ukraine!.[5] Parubiy stayed with Our Ukraine and became a member of its political council.[12]

In February 2010 Parubiy asked the European Parliament to reconsider its negative reaction to former Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko’s decision to award Stepan Bandera, the leader of the [racist-fascist] Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the title of Hero of Ukraine.[13]

In early February 2012 Parubiy left Our Ukraine because their “views diverged”.[14] In 2012 he was re-elected into parliament on the party list of ”Fatherland”.[15] [Yulia Tymoshenko heads the Fatherland Party; and she had been Obama’s choice to become the next President of Ukraine, but she was too far-right for even the far-right voters of northwestern Ukraine, so Poroshenko won instead.]

From December 2013 to February 2014 Parubiy was a commandant of Euromaidan.[16] He was coordinator of thevolunteer security corps for the mainstream protesters.[17] He was then appointed Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.[6] This appointed was approved by (then) new Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on June 16, 2014.[18]

As Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Parubiy oversaw the “anti–terrorist” operation againstpro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.[19]

Working directly under Parubiy in that “anti-terrorist operation” or “ATO,” was Yarosh, who in an interview with Newsweek, said that he has “been training paramilitary troops for almost 25 years,” and that his “divisions are constantly growing all over Ukraine, but over 10,000 people for sure.”

On May 14th of last year, there appeared, at Oriental Review, an important news report, “Bloodbath in Odessa Guided by Interim Rulers of Ukraine,” which described the roles of Yarosh, and of these others. It opened: “The information provided below was obtained from an insider in one of Ukraine’s law-enforcement agencies, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.” It said:

“Ten days before the tragedy a secret meeting was held in Kiev, chaired by the incumbent president Olexander Turchinov, to prepare a special operation in Odessa. Present were minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov, the head of the Ukrainian Security Service Valentin Nalivaychenko, and the secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Andriy Parubiy. Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskiy, the Kiev-appointed head of regional administration of the Dnepropetrovsk region, was consulted in regard to the operation.

During that meeting Arsen Avakov has reportedly came up with the idea of using football hooligans, known as “ultras,” in the operation. Ever since his time as the head of the Kharkov regional administration he has worked closely with the fans leaders, whom he continued to sponsor even fromhis new home in Italy.

Kolomoisky temporarily delivered his private “Dnieper-1” Battalion under the command of law-enforcement officials in Odessa and also authorized a cash payment of $5,000 for “each pro-Russian separatist” killed during the special operation.

Mykola Volvov was wanted by the Ukrainian police since 2012 for fraud.

A couple of days before the operation in Odessa Andriy Parubiy brought dozens of bullet-proof vests to local ultra-nationalists. This video shows an episode of handing the vests to the local Maidan activists in Odessa. Take note of the person who receives the load. He is Mykola Volkov, a local hard-core criminal who would be repeatedly screened during the assault on Trade Unionist House gun-shooting at the people and reporting about the “incident” by phone to an official in Kiev.

Preparations

Ultranationalist militants from the extremist Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA-UNSO), who could be recognized by their red armbands, were also used during the operation. They were assigned a key role in the staging of the provocations: they masqueraded as the defenders of the tent city on Kulikovo Field, and then lured its occupants into the House of Trade Unions to be slaughtered.

Fifteen roadblocks were set up outside of Odessa, secured by militants under the personal command of Kolomoisky’s “Dnieper-1” Battalion, as well as Right Sector’s thugs from Dnepropetrovsk and the western regions of Ukraine. In addition, two military units from the Self-Defense of Maidan arrived in Odessa, under the command of the acting head of the administration of the president, Sergey Pashinsky – the same man who was caught with a sniper rifle in the trunk of his car on Feb. 18 on Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev. Pashinsky later claimed that he had not been fully informed about the plans for the operation and had dispatched his men only to “protect the people of Odessa.” Thus, there were a total of about 1,400 fighters from other regions of Ukraine in the vicinity at the time – thus countering the idea that there were “residents of Odessa” who burned down the House of Trade Unions.

Deputy chief of Odessa police and principle coordinator of the operation Dmitry Fucheji mysteriously dissappeared soon after the tradegy in Odessa.

The role of the Odessa police forces in the operation was personally directed by the head of the regional police, Petr Lutsyuk, and his deputy Dmitry Fucheji. Lutsyuk was assigned the task of neutralizing Odessa’s regional governor, Vladimir Nemirovsky, to prevent him from putting together an independent strategy that could disrupt the operation. Fucheji led the militants right to Greek Square where he was allegedly “wounded” (in order to evade responsibility for subsequent events).

The operation was originally scheduled for May 2 – the day of a soccer match, which would justify the presence of a large number of sports fans (“ultras”) downtown and would also mean there would be a minimal number of Odessa residents on the streets who were not involved in the operation, since the majority of the city’s population would be out of town enjoying their May Day holidays.

It should also be noted that Kolomoysky himself was directly connected to the U.S. White House.

If not for this horrific massacre, then the voters in the anti-coup regions would have remained inside the Ukrainian electorate, participants in the May 25th Presidential election to succeed Yanukovych as Ukraine’s new President: they would have been Ukrainian voters because the public sentiment in those regions still was not yet predominantly for separating from Ukraine; it was instead for the creation of a federal system that would have granted Donbass, Odessa, and the other anti-coup areas, some degree of autonomy. But that way, with the moderating influence of the voters in the far southeast, the resulting national government wouldn’t have been rabidly anti-Russian, and so wouldn’t have been, like the present one is, obsessed to kill Russians and to join NATO, for a NATO war against Russia. Obama needed to get rid of those voters. He needed them not to participate in the 25 May 2014 election. The May 2nd massacre was the way to do that. Here was the electoral turnout in the 25 May Ukrainian Presidential election. As you can see, almost all of the voters in that election were located in the parts of Ukraine that had voted overwhelmingly for Yulia Tymoshenko in the 2010 election, against Yanukovych.

Obama did his best to get the nazi queen Tymoshenko elected as Ukraine’s President; but, now that she was publicly and openly campaigning as the rabid anti-Russian that she had always been, and now that even many Ukrainian conservatives had qualms about going to war against Russia, since there was now so much political rhetoric favoring doing that, Poroshenko won, Tymoshenko lost. Poroshenko had played his cards just right: having been a supporter of the Maidan and of the overthrow of Yanukovych but not publicly associated with the nazis. He was even one of the people who informed the EU’s investigator that the coup was a coup, no authentic revolution.

Publicly, Poroshenko gave no hint that he knew that Yanukovych had been framed for the February sniper-attacks that had been organized by the U.S. White House and that the overthrow had been a coup. In fact, on May 6th, just days after the massacre, and less than a month before the 2014 Presidential election, Poroshenko said, “Proof was presented at the Verkhovna Rada’s session behind closed doors today that what happened at the House of Unions can be called a terrorist attack.” (This had to be “behind closed doors” because it was fictitious and thus needed to be blocked from being examined by the public.) By that time, the polls already showed that he was going to win the election, and he knew that his only real audience was the man sitting in the U.S. White House.

Obama didn’t get the more overt anti-Russian President that he had wanted, but he still controls Ukraine. The installation by Nuland of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the ‘temporary’ new Prime Minister to lead Ukraine after the coup, until a new President would be elected on May 25th, turned out to be permanent, instead of temporary. And Petro Poroshenko can’t do anything that Obama doesn’t want him to do. So: Obama still remains the virtual Emperor of Ukraine.

The people of Ukraine shouldn’t praise or blame either their Prime Minister or their (perhaps merely nominal) President for what has been happening in their country after the coup; they should instead praise or blame those men’s master: Barack Obama. He’s the person who made Yatsenyuk the Prime Minister, and who controls Poroshenko even though he didn’t prefer him over Tymoshenko.

Ukraine is just part of the American Empire now. Any Ukrainian who doesn’t recognize that would have to be a fool. It’s the outright nazi part of the American Empire, but it’s part of the American Empire nonetheless. Obama is the first U.S. President to install a racist-fascist, or nazi, regime, anywhere; and he did it in Ukraine, which has long been the ripest place in the world for doing that sort of thing. The May 2nd massacre was an important part of the entire operation. This is why that important massacre is ignored as much as it can be, in the U.S.

It’s important history, but it’s history that 99% of Americans are blocked from knowing. So: pass this article along to everyone you know (and, via facebook etc., even to some people you don’t know); and they, too, will then have access to the documentation that’s linked-to here, just as you did.

Hyping a Nonexistent Russian Threat

By Stephen Lendman
March 15, 2015
Global Research

 

putin smiling_0Western fear-mongering persists. Russia is relentlessly bashed. Putin is irresponsibly considered public enemy number one. 

Cold War 2.0 rages – heading dangerously toward becoming red-hot. Top US officials consistently lie.

One fabricated Russian invasion of Ukraine after another is hyped. In his January State of the Union address, Obama accused Russia of “aggression” in Ukraine despite none at any time during ongoing conflict

Earlier he said “Russian combat forces and tanks” invaded Ukraine “with Russian weapons and Russian tanks.”

“(T)hese are the facts. They are provable. They’re not subject to dispute.” No proof whatever was cited. None exists.

John Kerry repeats the same Big Lie. On March 2, he met with Sergey Lavrov in Geneva – days after lying about Russian involvement in Ukraine.

He warned Lavrov of new sanctions. They’re prepared and ready to be implemented, he said. He lied claiming Russian Minsk breaches.

None whatever occurred. No Russian violations of last year’s Geneva and Minsk agreements.

No Russian forces operate in Ukraine. Not now. Not earlier. No planned invasion.

No seizure of Ukrainian territory. No violations of international law. Big Lies claim otherwise.

Kerry consistently blames Russia for US/Kiev high crimes. Retired US General Robert Scales told Fox News the only way to change things in Ukraine is “start killing Russians.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich responded angrily, saying:

“Some US military and political leaders, who, like General Scales started killing during the Vietnam War, just can’t seem to let go.”

“Blinded by their hatred of Russia, they are unable to see a constructive view of reality.”

Lukashevich called it “outrageous that the calls for killing our compatriots have been made on Fox News, a leading network in the US, (in) prime time, obviously to reach as many people as possible.”

“This is how the mainstream US media are creating an atmosphere of Russophobia in the country.”

“(T)he tune in this unbridled propaganda campaign is set in Washington where aggressive statements are made every day. We will draw adequate conclusions from this.”

“Mr Scales should be informed that a case has been opened against him in Russia under Article 354 of the Criminal Code.”

Investigative Committee spokesman Vladimir Markin said using media to incite aggressive war means imprisonment for up to five years if convicted.

Scales’ incitement violates international law. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states:

“Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”

“Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

Scales isn’t alone. He’s like many other lunatics in Washington influencing US policy.

Their ideas risk nuclear war. Giving them air time on national television increases the possibility.

On March 13, Northern Command (NORTHCOM) commander Adm. Bill Gortney hyped a nonexistent Russian threat before Senate Armed Services Committee members.

He lied suggesting one, saying “Russian heavy bombers flew more out-of-area patrols in 2014 than in any year since the Cold War.”

“We have also witnessed improved interoperability between Russian long-range aviation and other elements of the Russian military, including air and maritime intelligence collection platforms positioned to monitor NORAD responses.”

Throughout US supported Kiev’s Donbass aggression, Pentagon commanders lied about nonexistent “Russian moves in Ukraine.”

Gortney went further saying NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) “face(s) increased risk in our ability to defend North America against Russian air, maritime an cruise missile threats” if their technology keeps improving.

His comments and similar ones by other Pentagon commanders reflect blatant fear-mongering to get Congress to spend more for “defense.”

It’s more than what all other nations combined spend with all categories included plus black budgets, secret intelligence ones, and regular appropriations added to annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) budgets.

Pentagon chiefs want tens of billions of dollars more. They want blank check funding for war-making. They want what no responsible government should allow.

Gortney lied telling Senate Armed Services Committee members America’s biggest security threat is spending constraints.

He ludicrously claimed it risks making America’s war machine a “hollow force.”

He took full advantage of Senate Foreign Relations Committee time given him.

He hyped nonexistent Russian, Chinese, North Korean, and Iranian homeland threats. He claimed homegrown terrorist ones.

He cited what he called “a transnational criminal network” operating in “seams” between Washington’s Northern, Southern and Pacific commands.

He hyped a possible cyberattack able to compromise America’s ability to defend itself.

America’s only enemies are ones it invents. Permanent wars follow – perhaps heading toward use of nuclear weapons for the first time since WW II.

Far more powerful ones. A previous article explained their destructive force – enough to turn major cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles to smoldering rubble. Enough to destroy life on earth.

UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond sounds like John Kerry. He claims Russia “pose(s) the single greatest threat to (British) security.”

He cited its nonexistent “increasingly aggressive” behavior.

“The rapid pace with which Russia is seeking to modernise her military forces and weapons combined with the increasingly aggressive stance of the Russian military including Russian aircraft around the sovereign airspace of Nato states are all significant causes of concern,” he claimed.

He turned truth on its head saying “(w)e are now faced with a Russian leader bent not on joining the international rules-based system which keeps the peace between nations, but on subverting it.”

Hammond perhaps forgot Britain’s alliance with Washington’s wars of aggression, its proxy wars, its dirty ones, its plan for global dominance by political, economic and hot wars without end.

Its global death, destruction and human misery trail. Its ravaging and destroying one country after another on the pretext of democracy building.

Last month, Britain’s Defense Secretary Michael Fallon absurdly warned about Putin posing a “real and present danger” to Baltic states.

Irresponsible hyped hysteria makes anything possible. Washington and Ukraine plan joint war games next week.

Legislation awaiting parliamentary approval permits multinational military exercises on Ukrainian territory – ahead of resumed war on Donbass.

US-dominated NATO prepares for more war. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg hyped “threats (from) aggressive actions of Russia in Ukraine…”

NATO commander General Philip Breedlove hypes the same Big Lie. Things get “worse every day,” he claims.

Angela Merkel’s office debunked his comments as “dangerous propaganda.”

German authorities call him a “super hawk” whose comments show he’s increasingly over-the-top.

He has no credibility whatever. German intelligence contradicts him point for point.

“I stand by all the public comments I have made during the Ukraine crisis,” he says.

Others call him a liar. His public statements reflect propaganda, not facts.

As NATO commander, he’s extremely dangerous. He could launch European war if not stopped. His public comments suggest a rage to do it.

On Thursday, the Financial Times reported Sweden sending troops to Gotland island in response to nonexistent Russian saber rattling.

Its Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist recommends about 150 soldiers. Gotland lies midway between Sweden and Latvia.

Hultqvist calls it “a strategic location in the Baltic Sea. (A) big worry for us.”

A senior Estonian politician claims “(i)t could be overrun by Russia in minutes and then all of us would be vulnerable to an attack.”

On the one hand, no threat exists. On the other, 150 soldiers provide no defense whatever.

Manufacturing nonexistent Russian threats continue. Poroshenko’s web site said:

“The Head of State has informed that Ukraine had contracts with a series of the EU countries on the supply of armament, inter alia, lethal one.”

“He has reminded that official embargo of the EU on the supply of weapons to Ukraine had been abolished.”

He didn’t name 11 supplier countries. US heavy weapons keep pouring in. Preparations for resumed war continue.

Pororshenko suggested it saying “(f)f there is a new round of aggression against Ukraine, I can surely say that we will immediately receive both lethal weaponry and new wave of sanctions against the aggressor.”

“We will act firmly and in a coordinated manner.” If “a new round of aggression” begins, Washington and Kiev will bear full responsibility.

Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) leader Igor Plotnitsky asked “why do (Kiev authorities) want weapons if they were the first to demand peace?”

All signs point to renewed conflict.

Donbass is Obama’s war. e.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Fox ‘News’ ‘Expert’ Says We Must “Start Killing Russians.” I Disagree.

By Eric Zuesse
March 14, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

On this video from Fox ‘News’:

At 3:30, Lou Dobbs asks the Fox Noise military analyst: “What do you expect” in Ukraine?

At 3:35 he answers: “In the Ukraine, the only way that the United States can have any effect in this region and turn the tide is to start killing Russians …  killing so many Russians that even Putin’s media can’t hide the fact that Russians are returning to the motherland in body bags.”

Well, anyway, there is a Republican ‘news’ operation: “Start killing Russians.” They hate Russians so much the hate practically bleeds from them, even in public. Democratic Party ‘news’ operatives are so much more subtle about it, such as “A military solution to this problem is not going to be forthcoming.” But they too demonize Russians and portray Putin as the super-demon. They’re just more subtle about their war-mongering and promotion of the international aristocracy, than Republicans are.

What the Fox ‘expert’ was specifically promoting there, to “Kill Russians,” is actually what the regime that Obama imposed upon Ukraine had been installed in order to do. And, so, immediately when they took power in late February of 2014, they demonized ethnic Russians and threatened to kill all Russians. They then intensively bombed the ethnic Russian region of Ukraine, as a starter to get rid of Russians and pro-Russians everywhere.

However, Fox’s ‘expert’ was suggesting to kill Russian troops inside Ukraine, which wouldn’t have been quite as heartless as what the Obama-coup-regime in Ukraine is actually doing (and which Fox and all of U.S. TV ignore): slaughtering the residents in the conflict-zone. The only snafu with that idea of killing Russian troops in the conflict-zone is: they aren’t there. The few Russian soldiers that actually had been in the conflict-zone, briefly, back in August of 2014, soon left and are no longer there. On 29 January 2015, Ukraine’s top general admitted, “No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us,” though mercenaries and/or volunteer fighters from many countries (including from the U.S.) were fighting on both sides (America’s were mercenaries, fighting for the Ukrainian Government). So: Fox’s ‘information’ was six months out-of-date, and had been valid only seven months ago, and for less than a month even then. That’s the trash that Fox Noise puts forth, but it’s really not much worse than CNN etc. American national ‘news’ media are virtually all propaganda-media.

The Fox commentator simply cannot fathom that when the Ukrainian Government started bombing the cities and villages in the region of Ukraine that rejected the coup-government — the Donbass region — many of its men took up arms and became unwilling soldiers in order to protect their families, friends, and towns and villages, against the bombers and the other invaders. The Donbass defenders are not Russian soldiers. They’re overwhelmingly the natives there — the ones that are still alive and haven’t fled.

Such commentators as this crude and callous man at Fox have no idea, no concept, how much higher is the motivation to fight when what one is fighting against is invaders, and what one is fighting for is the land on which one has lived one’s whole life and where one’s parents spent their whole lives. Bullies don’t think about things from the victim’s standpoint. And Fox’s commentator viewed things from a bully’s perspective.

Yes, Russia provides military advice and training (to the victims’ side), just as the U.S. provides military advice and training (to the invading side), but is that a crime when Russia does it? It’s a crime when America does it, because America (via its stooge-regime) is the invader, and because Ukraine (by virtue of its proximity to Russia) has at least as much strategic importance to Russia today as Cuba did to the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. What’s the crime here is America’s determination to place nuclear missiles in Ukraine, right on Russia’s border — and that’s the reason behind that coup in Ukraine (and the head of Stratfor called it “the most blatant coup in history,” but you didn’t read about that coup in places such as TIME or The New York Times). (Oh, they called it a victory for democracy. That’s like 1984 ‘democracy.’) And Putin should demand that the U.S. get out of Russia’s neighborhood. If Russia surrounded the U.S. with its bases, would we stand for it? Why should they?

Communism is over. The only reason for what Obama is doing in Ukraine is conquest. It’s raw; it is fascist, but in pretty words.

Many of Europe’s leaders don’t have the stomach for that disgusting crime which America’s President and Congress are perpetrating against Russia — first, the coup, and then the genocide against the residents in Donbass. So, there is resistance in the EU (though not in the U.S., which shows how virtually total is the propaganda here — it’s like a dictatorship).

Right now, the man whom Victoria Nuland of Obama’s State Department appointed on 4 February 2014 (18 days before the coup), to lead the post-coup Ukrainian government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, is still determined to destroy Russia. But if this fact, alone, isn’t enough to get the decent nations in Europe to abandon the U.S. and even to leave both NATO and the EU and maybe to join with Russia if necessary to do so, then we are all headed for a nuclear war, because the psychopathy reigning at the very top of the U.S. Government is really extreme and has careened out of control. Never before in history has an American President installed an outright nazi government, anywhere.

What’s shown on Fox Noise is merely a more-honest version of that psychopathy, but the psychopathy is just as bad on the more subtle ‘liberal’ side. (And also see this.) 

The only thing that can even possibly restrain it now is Europe’s abandonment of it — and of the U.S. And, if that’s simply too much to ask from Europe, then there will be curtains soon for all of planet Earth, because Putin won’t be able to tolerate much longer the American Government’s surrounding Russia with its and NATO’s military bases and missiles.

When Obama took over Ukraine, in February 2014, Putin had to respond, and he did. (Russia is being punished for responding, but the U.S. isn’t being punished for the coup and ethnic cleansing that Russia is only responding to. In international affairs, there is no justice.) But if America doesn’t reverse itself now and just back off, the entire world will suffer enormous consequences. America won’t need to apologize; tyrannical regimes don’t do that. What’s needed instead is for the tyranny to stop, and only Europe and Japan possess the ability to get this country to do that.

The American Presidents from Reagan on, and certainly after Reagan, have consistently followed this plan of encircling and choking-off Russia, and have by their actions defined America throughout this time as the supreme rogue nation, and its ’news’ media are all just part of that propaganda-operation, for lying this nation into so many invasions, which destroy so many nations. Either the super-rogue will stop, or the world will stop.

Because things have gotten to such a point that either America will be stopped peacefully by its allies abandoning it, or else America will be stopped violently by Russia preemptively nuclear-attacking it, which will destroy the whole world.

The fate of the world is in the hands of America’s allies, who must quickly become former allies.

The world’s big bully on the block needs to become isolated; he needs to lose his gang. That’s what needs to happen, now.

In Gallup’s only international poll on the subject (in 2014), which surveyed 66,000 people in 65 nations, the U.S. was overwhelmingly the most frequently cited nation as being “the greatest threat to peace in the world today.” And that was before the coup, and before the ethnic cleansing, which have placed the world clearly on the path to nuclear annihilation. Russia wasn’t even among the top seven nations that were mentioned in that poll. But now the big bully on the block is going after him. Will the bully’s friends join in? Let’s hope not. Let’s hope they’ll abandon him — and quickly.

———-

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

German, European Govs: America’s “Dangerous Propaganda”, Military Aid Harming Ukraine Peace Process

By Robert Barsocchini
March 14, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

Ukraine warAs noted in today’s special report by Chris Martenson:

Having reached a tenuous peace agreement with Ukraine and Russia (without the US), Germany is realizing and announcing that, indeed, the US does not seem intent on peace.

McClatchy reports that German government officials have “recently referred to U.S. statements of Russian involvement in the Ukraine fighting as ‘dangerous propaganda’”.  In light of US propaganda and military support for Kiev, Germany even asked outright whether “the Americans want to sabotage the European mediation attempts in Ukraine led by Chancellor Merkel?”

While there is agreement in the West that Russia does support the Ukrainian democrats whose elected leader was violently overthrown with US and European support (the US supports numerous groups, including anti-Semitic neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists, around the world, in addition to illegal US invasions), Germany and other European governments say US officials such as US Gen. Breedlove and Obama’s asst. sec. state for Europe, the notorious Victoria Nuland, “have been exaggerating the extent of Russian involvement in the conflict.”

Breedlove, for instance, is issuing untrue statements – lies – for the purpose of “playing to” – propagandizing – “an American audience”, which European officials say “doesn’t advance peace efforts”, another polite way of saying it conspicuously impedes them.

Since being caught red-handed and forced to address the issue of their “exaggerated claims” about Russia’s involvement in doing something the US does continually, a US official responded anonymously and changed the US tune, trying now to shift focus away from the exact numbers, about which the US was previously so adamant.

Ukrainian officials have made similar claims, on scores of occasions announcing an all out Russian military “invasion” of Ukraine.

The exposures by the German government of US [and thereby Kiev’s] lies, notes Antiwar.com’s Jason Ditz, “may finally be the explanation … for how US[/Kiev] claims of huge Russian military presences never come with any pictures…” except ones that have been plastered on the front of the New York Times and then debunked as fraudulent and later retracted, deep inside the paper – see Robert Parry‘s “NYT Retracts Russian Photo Scoop”.

As part of what European officials say is sabotaging the peace process, the US is now providing another $75 million worth of aid to Kiev, including 230 Humvees.  This is in addition to the $120 million already given to Kiev’s forces by the US.

Author and UK-based colleague on Twitter

Danger of war with Russia grows as US sends military equipement to Ukraine

By Johannes Stern and Alex Lantier
March 13, 2015
World Social Web Site

 

UkraineUSWashington has begun delivering military hardware to Ukraine as part of NATO’s ongoing anti-Russian military build-up in eastern Europe, escalating the risk of all-out war between the NATO alliance and Russia, a nuclear-armed power.

The Obama administration announced on Wednesday that it would transfer 30 armored Humvees and 200 unarmored Humvees, as well as $75 million in equipment, including reconnaissance drones, radios and military ambulances. The US Congress has also prepared legislation to arm the Kiev regime with $3 billion in lethal weaponry.

Washington is at the same time deploying 3,000 heavily armed troops to the Baltic republics, near the Russian metropolis of St. Petersburg. Their 750 Abrams main battle tanks, Bradley armored personnel carriers, and other vehicles are slated to remain behind after the US troops leave. This handover is aimed at “showing our determination to stand together” against Russian President Vladimir Putin, US Major General John O’Connor said in the Latvian capital, Riga.

Washington is pressing ahead despite stark warnings from Moscow that it views massive weapons deliveries by NATO to hostile states on its borders as an intolerable threat to Russian national security.

“Without a doubt, if such a decision is reached, it will cause colossal damage to US-Russian relations, especially if residents of the Donbass [east Ukraine] start to be killed by American weapons,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said last month. He called NATO’s plans “very worrying,” adding: “This is about creating additional operational capabilities that would allow the alliance to react near Russia’s borders… Such decisions will naturally be taken into account in our military planning.”

The decision is also sharpening tensions between Washington and Berlin, which backs the current policy of sanctions and financial strangulation of Russia, but opposes moves that threaten all-out war with Russia.

Visiting Washington yesterday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier urged a continuation of the strategy of “economic and political pressure” on Russia. Arming Ukraine, could “catapult (the conflict) into a new phase,” he warned at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank.

The mood in broad sections of the American ruling elite has turned increasingly hysterical, however, after the Kiev regime’s defeat prior to last month’s ceasefire in Ukraine negotiated by German, French, Russian, and Ukrainian officials in Minsk.

In a comment denounced by the Russian Foreign Ministry, retired Major General and TV pundit Robert Scales declared, “It’s game, set, and match in Ukraine. The only way the United States can have any effect in the region and turn the tide is to start killing Russians.”

This week, Pentagon and Congressional officials called for Washington to arm Kiev, pressing for faster action from the White House. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey are pressing for large-scale weapons deliveries to Kiev, as are leading members of Congress from both big-business parties.

“I applaud President Obama for sending a strong signal both to the people of Ukraine as well as to the Kremlin,” said Democratic Senator Dick Durbin. “But more can and must be done for Ukraine, including defensive weapons as soon as possible.”

“The fact that it appears that the president may have made a commitment to [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel while she was here, or the German ambassador, not to do that certainly has created a lot of concern on both sides of the aisle,” said Republican Senator Bob Corker.

“I don’t buy this argument that, you know, us supplying the Ukrainian army with defensive weapons is going to provoke Putin,” said Democratic Senator Chris Murphy.

With a toxic combination of maniacal aggression and thoughtlessness, the NATO alliance is lurching towards a war with Russia that could destroy the entire planet. Warnings about US policy from Berlin, which itself has led the European imperialist powers in supporting the February 2014 putsch in Kiev and backing the Kiev regime’s bloody war in east Ukraine, have at most a tactical character. The only force that opposes war is the working class, in America and Europe and internationally.

Despite Berlin’s misgivings as to US policy, the NATO alliance is pursuing its escalation against Russia. At a press conference Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and NATO Supreme Commander of European forces General Philip Breedlove laid out the ongoing military build-up across eastern Europe. They spoke at the Supreme command Headquarters of Allied Personnel in Europe (SHAPE) in Mons, Belgium, which oversees NATO operations in Europe.

Stoltenberg declared that due to the Ukraine crisis, NATO has to “expand its collective defense, as it has never done since the end of the Cold War… We will double the rapid response force from 13,000 soldiers to 30,000. We will equip the rapid response force with a spearhead of 5,000 men, which will be ready to deploy within 48 hours. And we will establish six command centers in the Baltic states and three other eastern European countries.”

Referring to NATO member states’ pledge to massively increase defense spending at the recent Wales summit, Stoltenberg pledged to “keep up the momentum.” Besides the escalation in the Baltics, naval exercises are taking place in the Black Sea, and NATO is preparing for the largest exercises for many years, with 25,000 men, in southeastern Europe.

Breedlove said he had never seen greater “unity, readiness and determination within NATO to tackle the challenges of the future together.” He was sure that this would continue.

In reality, tensions between Washington and its European allies, above all Germany, have increased in recent weeks. In its latest edition, Der Spiegel reports that Berlin is angry that “Washington’s hardliners are inciting the conflict with Moscow, first and foremost the supreme commander of NATO in Europe.”

The German Chancellor’s office criticized Breedlove for “dangerous propaganda” and making “imprecise, contradictory and even untruthful” statements.

“I wish that in political matters, Breedlove would express himself more cleverly and reluctantly,” commented a foreign-policy specialist of the Social-Democratic Party, Niels Annen. Instead, NATO has “repeatedly spoken out against a Russian offensive in the Ukraine conflict precisely at the point when in our view, the time was right for careful optimism.”

According to Der Spiegel, the US-German dispute is “fundamentally because the transatlantic partners [have] different objectives… While the German-French initiative [a reference to the Minsk peace agreement] aimed to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, for the hawks in the American administration it is about Russia. They want to push back Russia’s influence in the region and destabilize Putin’s rule. Their dream goal is regime change in Russia.”

German imperialism backed the coup in Ukraine, using the crisis to create political conditions for it to rearm within the framework of NATO and pursue its economic and geostrategic interests in eastern Europe militarily. It fears an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, however, as it could expand into all-out war between NATO and Russia, for which the German army is not yet ready.

Europe Blocks U.S. from Racing to War Against Russia

By Eric Zuesse
March 7, 2015
Washingtons Blog

 

unclesam_lind_pdOn Friday, 6 March, President Obama placed temporarily on ice his planned increase in weapons and soldiers to help the Ukrainian Government to ‘defend’ Ukraine against the ‘terrorists’ in Donbass, which is the Ukrainian region that had voted 90% for the President whom the Obama Administration overthrew in February 2014. (Here is where the EU first learned, on 26 February 2014, that the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych had been a coup instead of a genuine popular revolution.) Obama replaced that Government with a racist-fascist anti-Russian regime, which quickly set about exterminating as many residents of Donbass as possible, as quickly as possible (calling them ‘terrorists,’ for their refusal to be ruled by the new Obama-imposed, anti-Russian, Government).

According to German Economic News, Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Francois Hollande are balking at the speed of Obama’s rush to war against Russia.

Earlier, some of the smaller national economies in the European Union — the Czech Republic, Hungary  and Greece — dissented from America’s effort to increase economic sanctions and military measures against Russia. But there is now increasing pressure upon the leaders in Germany, France, and Italy, also to separate the EU from the American rush to war against Russia.

Here is my translation of the key passage from the article on this matter, dated March 7th, in German Economic News:

“Apparently, the developments have shown that in the Euro-zone the Americans’ desire for a full escalation of the conflict against Russia could no longer be accepted without objection by the Europeans. The Americans were apparently informed by Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande that they are concerned about the rise of France’s National Front Party: Its chairman, Marine Le Pen, rejects the current EU policy towards Russia. If the National Front comes to power in France, it would be almost impossible for the EU to pursue a U.S.-coordinated foreign policy, such as they both want to do. Therefore, Merkel and Hollande aim to contain the negative economic consequences to their own nations of sanctions against Russia, so as to prevent victory for the National Front.

“Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has spoken with President Putin in Moscow on a stronger partnership between Italy and Russia. The Italians are feeling the effects of the sanctions particularly strongly, and want to avoid an escalation in any case.

“Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias also has doubts as to the purpose of the US sanctions policy of the EU.”

Washington criticizes many European politicians for their opposing Washington’s anti-Russian policies. In Hungary and France, nationalist political parties offer especially strong resistance, because they oppose their own nation’s being ruled by Washington’s dictates. Even though Washington backs nazis in Ukraine, some European right-wing (though not nearly as far right-wing as in Ukraine) parties are patriotically opposed to European taxpayers donating to fund Ukraine’s fascists. The odd result is that some semi-fascist parties in Europe are especially balking at the extreme fascism, even nazism, that Washington supports in Ukraine. It’s too far to the right for them to go; they don’t want to be forced to go that far; they don’t want their nation to fund Washington’s aims.

Obama thus needs to juggle many balls at once in order to keep the Western Alliance together with him in his overriding foreign-policy goal of destroying Russia. 

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,  and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Victoria Nuland Lied to US Congress about Phantom Russian Hoards in Ukraine

By Stephen Lendman
March 07, 2015
Global Research

Victoria Nuland

nuland-in-ukraine (1)On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.

She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a “freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend.”

She absurdly called Ukraine “central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a ‘Europe whole, free and at peace.’ ”

Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia’s heartland – with menacing US bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.

Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs “peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians.”

“They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms.”

Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych’s police showed remarkable restraint.

Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and other violence.

Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy whatever.

Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.

Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a US-installed fascist dictatorship.

Nuland lied claiming

“enhance(d) (Ukrainian) transparency in public procurement, reduce(d) government inefficiency and corruption, (laws) making the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate for business and…foreign investment.”

Ukrainian banking is a black hole of grand theft. State farmland and enterprises are being sold to Western predators at fire sale prices.

Corruption is worse than ever. Government and military officials are stealing everything they can get their dirty hands on – at the expense of imposing crushing austerity on deeply impoverished millions.

Hyperinflation grips the country. The “breadbasket” of Europe can’t feed its people. Rationing was imposed.

Energy prices skyrocketed to unaffordable levels. Ukraine symbolizes humanitarian disastrous conditions wherever America shows up.

Nuland recited a litany of Big Lies about the “new Ukraine,” – a Nazified menace to its people

Claiming it’s “building a peaceful, democratic, independent” nation is polar opposite truth.

She aimed the worst of her rant at Russia and Donbass freedom fighters.

She lied about Crimea “under illegal occupation” – ignoring near Crimean unanimity to reverse a historic mistake and rejoin Russia.

She turned truth on its head claiming

“(i)n eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage.”

“MH17 was shot down. Hundreds of Russian heavy weapons and troops poured across the border, fueling the conflict.”

“Sixteen Russian uninspected ‘humanitarian convoys’ entered Ukraine in violation of agreements with the Ukrainian government, the ICRC and the international community.”

“Donetsk airport was obliterated…Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the ceasefire lines, fell to separatist and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed…”

“This is a manufactured conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers’ expense and costing the lives of young Russians…”

Fact: Kiev collaboratively with Washington launched naked aggression against Donbass residents wanting democratic rights everyone deserves – wanting to live free from the scourge of fascism.

Fact: No Russian hoards “poured across (Ukraine’s) border.” Kiev’s own military chief said so.

No evidence whatever shows Russian involvement. None exists except photos exposed as fakes.

Fact: Washington and Kiev bear full responsibility for unleashing unspeakable violence against Donbass residents.

Fact: One or more Ukrainian warplanes downed MH17- a US/Kiev false flag. Russia and rebels had nothing to do with it.

Fact: Russia is the only nation delivering vitally needed humanitarian aid – inspected by ICRC representatives.

Fact: Minsk ceasefire terms included nothing about Debastseve.

Fact: Washington and Kiev “manufactured” Donbass’ conflict – not Moscow or rebels.

Not a single House Foreign Affairs Committee member challenged Nuland’s obvious and outrageous Big Lies.

They accepted them as gospel. They let an unindicted war criminal insult them.

Russia and rebels are consistently and wrongfully blamed for US/Kiev crimes.

Obama wants war, not peace. He wants unchallenged control over America’s newest colony. He wants it pillaged for profit.

He wants it as a stepping-stone toward long sought regime change in Russia – replacing its sovereign independence with pro-Western puppet governance.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Ukraine, Fighting the Spin

By Gordon Duff
March 3, 2015
New eastern Outlook

 

c7b534e75b1a4a11bf6466c3a0a50001_18There was no coup or revolution in the Ukraine. It was an invasion and it is still going on. Real surrender begins with psychological warfare. You have an opponent “on the run” when you get them to accept your narrative. The term, roughly translated as Revolution of Dignity, was cooked up at the Jamestown Foundation in Washington, well in advance of Victoria Nuland’s assumption of the throne as defacto “Queen of the Ukraine,” lording over her subjects, playing the role of “donut dollie.”

The roots of the conflict in the Ukraine with thousands dead and the threat of, minimally, a wider regional conflict, is inexorably, extremist elements in the United States, faces and voices seen in the invasion of Afghanistan, of Iraq, the supporters of ISIS/Al Qaeda in Syria and the cheerleaders of the continued genocide against the Palestinian people.

Half of any war is the war of words, words kill more, in the end, than any weapon. The current battle in the Ukraine, coup within coup, counter-coup or civil war, all words, got out of hand long ago. Over the past days, the “narrative” used by the West has failed, the Kiev “government” is no government, only warring factions, “toadies” of a broader and clearly quite international conspiracy.

Let’s examine where it went wrong.

In February 2014, ultra-nationalists including NATO security services, Polish special forces, Israeli commandos and extremist elements within Ukraine moved against the elected pro-Russian government. Enough documents have been released citing coup backed snipers killing dozens of protesters, US embassy officials planning false flag attacks, extremists downing a passenger airliner and NATO peddling falsified intelligence, to make it very clear that the “coup” is more of an invasion than anything else.

The issue of “containing” or surrounding Russia has been at the heard of Western policy since the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in 1947. Expansionist moves by NATO are only a continuation of those policies. That they are visibly coordinated with “Islamist” wars in the Middle East and Africa is more than anecdotal.

NATO simply moved into the Ukraine under the cover of a political upheaval, one NATO itself orchestrated and one backed by broad criminal elements, many of which are also involved in backing Al Qaeda and ISIS. Among these are think tanks, public relations agencies, financial institutions, oil and armaments interests, which by current definition can be referred to as “the usual suspects.”

Documenting this last statement is relatively easy, tracing shiploads of specially modified trucks, some bought by Saudi Royals, armed in Israel, shipped by train through Jordan, funded by stolen Syrian antiquities, stolen oil, even entire factories stolen from Syria and trucked into Turkey, run there with profits shared by ISIS. This is what General Wesley Clark, former NATO commander was talking about when he cited NATOs role in creating ISIS, in a TV interview last week.

What is the real situation on the ground? Is the conflict in the Ukraine an invasion or a coup? First we must consider international law. As the “takeover” never consolidated power, it must be considered, coup or invasion, an ongoing operation.

The idea that a “coup” that fails to gain political control of but only one region of a nation and then holds an election, in that one region only, within one ethnic group, possibly a minority group, as the language using of Ukrainians has long been a subject of debate, is absurd.

The idea that a junta in Kiev could hold an election there without participation in Eastern Ukraine, and claim to be a “republic” is not only a violation of the Geneva Convention, but third rate political spin as well.

Widespread and large scale armed resistance by a substantial percentage of the population of the Ukraine now long subjected to indiscriminate attack by heavy artillery with thousands dead more than negates any claim of political legitimacy.

It could and perhaps should be asserted that the Eastern regions are “loyalist” and are resisting an ongoing coup attempt. All is semantics. Then again, NATO’s discussions of arming the Kiev junta in order to aid a “coup” in consolidating power steps well over the line.

Even such a suggestion by Nation constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions and is, by definition, clearly “aggressive war” through implication alone.

The presence of mercenary troops, “military contractors,” though an issue not considered when the Geneva Conventions were penned, would under any reasonable standard be considered an invading force. From the Webster Dictionary:

Full Definition of COUP D’ÉTAT:  a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially :  the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group

Let’s now look at the definition of a “revolution,” according to Webster:

Full Definition of REVOLUTION

a :  a sudden, radical, or complete change

b :  a fundamental change in political organization; especially :  the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

We flunk on the “a” definition as there is no “complete change.” A stalled or failing “or incomplete “change” leads us to an applicable definition under international law that, with that “other definition” also implies mandatory prosecution as well.

Let’s now look at a definition of “aggressive war.” This is a place we get a lot of “weaseling around.” This is the applicable language from the Geneva Convention:

Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.”

This would mean that any support from outside the Ukraine for the Kiev junta from the outset in February 2014 through the present day is support of an “armed band.” That the “armed band” may be a militia or claim to be the Ukrainian Army is not germane. Let’s see if we can get closer to something understandable. We will take a look at the Nuremberg Principles from 1945:

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace, in Principle VI, specifically Principle VI(a), submitted to the United Nations General Assembly, as:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

By this standard, if one could establish evidence of a conspiracy beforehand, perhaps on the part of NATO or the United States unilaterally or even Poland, let’s say training camps set up there to prepare for a coup or revolution of invasion, you choose what you wish to call it, any evidence, even one instance, is all that is needed to meet the burden of proof as established at Nuremberg.

I don’t think anyone would have much difficulty in finding proof for (ii), a “common plan or conspiracy.” This one is pretty much a “slam dunk.”

From the standpoint of international law, prior to the conventions cited above, the adage of “might makes right” was all that was required. Thus, were one nation able to invade and incorporate another and then successfully defend such acts, there was no redress other than more of the same in converse.

If anything, the conflict in the Ukraine presents legal challenges because, not only its continuing nature, but that the supposed victors, be they coup plotters or surrogates for NATO aggression, seem to be losing.

The semantics of psychological warfare are vital if ascribing blame or controlling narrative can influence an outcome. What is certain is this; the “spin” certainly prevents any application of statute or treaty, thus turning the clock back to the era of “might makes right.” Even the most doltish are taking note of this.

Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/03/03/ukraine-fighting-the-spin/

The Scourge of US-Installed Fascism in Europe’s Heartland. The Looming Dangers of War with Russia

By Stephen Lendman
March 03, 2015
Global Research

 

Obama bears full responsibility for replacing Ukraine’s democratically elected government with Nazi lunatics.

Russia’s lower house State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin said “(t)he guilt of the United States of America for (what happened) is considerable and obvious to the entire world.”

Ukraine’s crisis “poses a risk to international security, first of all to European security.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey was clear and unequivocal saying:

“For a quarter of century, the key principles of the United Nations had been systematically violated.”

“The US and other Western nations neglected the fundamental rules of international law, widely used double standards and didn’t hesitate to intervene directly into other nations’ sovereign affairs.”

“The impact of this policy is fully felt by the peoples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and now Ukraine.”

He omitted Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Somalia, numerous other countries, and his own affected by the scourge of US policies.

The good news is Washington “failed to make up a global anti-Russian coalition,” said Lavrov.

“We are engaged in a dialogue with the majority of the countries. Support of the world community for Russia’s balanced policy is growing.”

America makes more enemies than friends. Pressure won’t force Russia to change its foreign policy, Lavrov stressed.

Obama’s new National Security Strategy reflects US business as usual, he said – permanent wars against invented enemies.

Obama’s lunatic aim for “global dominance and readiness to use military force unilaterally to ensure American interests” threatens everyone, said Lavrov.

He “mentions over a hundred times the exceptional right of the US to exercise the notorious American leadership.”

He believes it’s “inevitable…(I)t looks like the White House forgot what seeking hegemony to the detriment of other countries’ interests may lead to.”

“…(T)he ferocity that we see in (Britain and other) Western capitals now exceeds the levels seen during the…Cold War.”

Lavrov clearly sees the danger of heading things toward possible East/West war responsible leaders don’t want.

Britain announced sending combat troops to Ukraine masquerading as military trainers.

An unnamed Kremlin source accused its government of “apparently prepar(ing) to derail” Minsk.

“Statements from London that say there’s no military solution to the Ukrainian crisis amid this move appear to be at least hypocritical and a case of gambling with the security of all Europe in worst-case scenario,” it added.

Ceasefire is largely holding, but for how long. Its fragility suggests conflict could resume any time at Washington’s discretion.

It uses Kiev’s military as a proxy force waging naked aggression in Europe’s heartland. Battleground Ukraine is pretext for targeting Russia.

Anyone paying attention knows Washington’s main objective is toppling its government. Replacing it with one it controls.

Risking nuclear war to achieve its objective. No nation threatens humanity’s survival more than America. None is governed more recklessly and ruthlessly.

Former Czech health minister Ivan David said Washington is turning Europe into a battlefield.\

EU nations “whose elites are taking orders from an alien, American power, (are) leading the whole continent to the slaughterhouse,” he stressed.

They should partner with Russia to survive, he believes. Europe needs “new elites.” Current ones may set the entire continent ablaze.

They’re “promised they will be allowed to survive if they diligently serve (US interests) at the expense of their own peoples.”

If Europe wants to survive, it needs fundamental new policy, he stressed.

Tinderbox conditions remain in Donbass. Kiev beginning to withdraw heavy weapons may be more head-fake than willingness to observe Minsk.

On February 27, Sputnik News said its forces “will leave enough units and equipment along the line of contact (on the pretext of being able) to react to a possible ceasefire violation.”

Fascists in charge violated previous ceasefire agreements straightaway. It takes a giant leap of faith to believe they’ll observe what they systematically rejected before – regardless of what they agreed to in Minsk or say publicly.

Washington calls the shots. It’s Kiev’s paymaster. Obama deplores peace. He wants war. He wants total control over his newest colony.

Canada and Australia saying they’ll send combat troops to Ukraine under the guise of military trainers ups the stakes for more war.

Humanity’s fate hangs in the balance. Paul Craig Roberts addressed the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow via Skype.

He discussed reckless neocon policies responsible for wrecking Reagan/Gorbachev rapprochement – saving the world in the 1980s from possible humanity destroying nuclear war.

 Soviet Russia’s dissolution “removed the only constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad,” said Roberts.

The Gulf and Baltic wars followed. The rape of Yugoslavia was prelude for Bush/Obama post-9/11 permanent direct and proxy wars in multiple theaters.

America’s maniacal drive for global hegemony may kill us all. Neocon lunatics making policy intend stopping at nothing to assure no nation challenges US dominance.

Life on earth is threatened like never before. Possible nuclear war should scare everyone. Western propaganda heads things toward the unthinkable.

Poroshenko wants US-led NATO doing his fighting for him in the next planned phase of war. It bears repeating.

It could start anytime at Obama’s discretion. Perhaps it’s a major US/Kiev false flag away.

Something big like 9/11 to get US-NATO forces directly involved risking war with Russia.

Ukraine is rearming in preparation for more war. After contracting with the UAE for US-made weapons, it agreed to buy drones and electronic warfare from France’s Thales Group.

Kiev official Oleg Gladkovsky said “contracts have been reached with US companies.” He provided no further details.

Ukraine is broke. It’s bankrupt. Where is it getting money to buy expensive weapons?

IMF funds supposedly exclude using them for war-making. The idea being they’re to pay bankers first. Apparently enough wiggle room permits virtually anything.

Bloomberg cited an unnamed source saying conflict in Donbass “would make it tougher for Ukraine to maintain its economic commitments to the IMF and (service its debt) while deepening the fund’s involvement in the worst standoff in Europe sine the end of the Cold War.”

Congress may provide a billion dollars more in aid. House legislation introduced authorizes the secretaries of defense and state “to provide assistance, including training, equipment, lethal weapons of a defensive nature (sic), logistics support, supplies and services, and sustainment to the military and national security forces of Ukraine through September 30, 2017.”

The measure ludicrously says it’s to help Kiev secure its “sovereign territory against foreign aggressors (and promote) conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict.”

Providing funds for weapons assures more conflict. Initiating it depends on:

  • what lunatics in Washington have in mind;
  • whether US forces will be directly involved; and
  • if or how efforts are made to draw Russia into a war on its border it wants ended once and for all.

For now, things are relatively (not entirely) calm. On Thursday, DPR Prime Minister Alexander Zakharcehcko issued the following statement in good faith:

“In pursuance of the Declaration of 12.02.2015 and the ‘Package of measures concerning implementation of the Minsk Agreement,’  the Donetsk People’s Republic has withdrawn heavy armament to the agreed upon and registered by the given document distance.”

As of Friday morning, withdrawal of artillery, mortars and heavy equipment was 90% completed.

Zakharchenko said “(t)he Ukrainian side (so far) evades (its) commitments” beyond token withdrawals to positions not in compliance with Minsk.

“In case of violation by the Ukrainian side, (DPR) reserve(s) the right to return heavy armaments to the places of previous dislocation…”

DPR holds Kiev fully responsible if Minsk fails like previous ceasefires.

If sporadic “shelling and attacks do not stop,” said Zakharchenko, “we reserve the right to consider the Minsk agreement wrecked by the Ukrainian side.”

“Military equipment will be returned to their previous positions. All attempts to attack our settlements will be checked in the bud.”

Zakharchenko said LPR leadership intends a similar announcement. Poroshenko’s latest comment should give them cause for concern.

He lied claiming a continued rebel “military threat.” Saying Kiev intends repositioning heavy weapons in front line positions any time he says they violated Minsk – whether true or false.

Throughout months of conflict, Kiev, Washington, other Western nations, Eastern European NATO members, and media scoundrels repeatedly accused rebels of Kiev crimes.

Expect a similar Big Lie to launch the next phase of conflict. Likely threatening Europe more than any time since WW II.

Will its leaders risk everything staying loyal to Washington’s imperial madness? Will their populations allow them to do it at the risk of their own demise?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net 

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

 http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

 Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 

 Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

A year after Euro-Maidan, Ukraine coming apart at the seams

By Nile Bowie
March 2, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

5645333It has been a year since protestors descended on Kiev’s Independence Square calling for the ouster of President Victor Yanukovich. Though the movement consisted of both liberal pro-European elements and rightwing quasi-fascist groups, most international media chose to frame the events of Maidan in a way that misleadingly obscured the role of the latter.

While reports indicate that pro-Western intelligentsia and activists are leaving their country in droves, the situation in Ukraine today cannot be properly understood without fully appreciating the role of quasi-fascist paramilitaries and their private-sector backers, who now exert tremendous influence on the leadership in Kiev and the political climate in Ukraine more generally.

Though the crisis in Ukraine remains a domestic conflict between the majority of citizens in the west who favor ties with Brussels and those in east who seek autonomy, independence or ascension into the Russian Federation, the growing internationalization of the conflict risks an irreversible escalation.

The recent Nato exercises in the Estonian frontier town of Narva that saw a parade of military hardware laden with American flags some 300 yards from Russia’s border, prompting counter-exercises from Moscow, is indicative of the increasingly provocative measures being taken. As the neo-conservative faction in Washington essentially steers the Obama administration’s policy, the idea of a Cold War-style stand-off between Russia and Nato grows ever more plausible.

Deepening Financial Crisis

The Ukrainian economy is bleeding out and rapidly approaching insolvency. The national currency, the hryvnia, has depreciated 68 percent in the past 12 months. Reports from Kiev indicate an ongoing disagreement between the central bank, which has tightened controls on capital movement to suppress capital flight, and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who reportedly opposed capital control measures.

The central bank lifted restrictions on capital movements on Yatsenyuk’s orders, sparking a further free-fall of the hryvnia, making it the world’s worst performing currency, according to Bloomberg. Ukrainian bonds have become the worst performing among 58 nations on Bloomberg’s Emerging Market Sovereign Bond Index, having plunged by 25 percent this year.

Ukraine is now in the throes of a hyper-inflationary crisis, kept afloat by IMF loans that require gauging structural adjustments and austerity measures. GDP figures have dropped 6.5 percent in the last year, while the unemployment rate has climbed to 9.3 percent in 2014. The minimum wage has hit an all-time low of $43 USD, considerably below the wage equivalents of Bangladesh, Lesotho or Chad.

According to reports, residents are considerably panicked as they stock up on foodstuffs in preparation for further economic turbulence. While a lull in fighting has taken place in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the ceasefire remains extremely fragile. The new authorities in Kiev would likely impose martial law across the country if further fighting breaks out between separatist militias and government forces, backed by quasi-fascist volunteer battalions.

Separatist Victory at Debaltseve

Clashes have reignited between the Ukrainian army and separatist militias just days after marathon negotiations in Minsk between the presidents of France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia to establish a lasting ceasefire. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the military leadership have been subjected to domestic ridicule following the army’s crushing defeat and surrender at Debaltseve, a strategic railway and communications hub linking self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk republics.

Several thousand Ukrainian soldiers became encircled within Debaltseve, according to reports, while attempting to retain Kiev’s last supply route into the besieged town. Numerous casualties were lost on both sides as the separatist leadership disavowed the ceasefire agreement in the area of Debaltseve. Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk republic, had issued statements reiterating assurances ensuring the safety of Ukrainian soldiers trapped in the Debaltseve pocket if they surrendered peacefully, culminating in a major victory for the separatist side.

The loss of Debaltseve comes after a string of military victories for the separatists, placing Poroshenko in a politically vulnerable position amid increasing public frustration with the country’s military hierarchy. Poroshenko’s administration has reinstated a previously scraped mandatory military conscription policy, generating opposition from activists who supported the overthrow of the former regime, including high-profile journalist Ruslan Kotsaba, who was arrested and charged with treason after denouncing Kiev’s mobilization plans.

Thousands have dodged the military draft while the government mulls new laws to restrict the foreign and domestic travel of Ukraine’s military age males, many of who would rather take refuge in Russia or neighboring countries than volunteer to be sent to the frontlines. Those who have responded to the draft view their service as an obligatory patriotic duty, though the series of military defeats in correlation with prolonged political, economic and security crises is widely seen as having exhausted the morale of the army.

Poroshenko is additionally under pressure from ultra-nationalist volunteer battalions, which function as private paramilitary groups in the service of wealthy businesspersons who reportedly fund multiple battalions. Volunteer battalions operate autonomously, outside the military’s chain of command with virtually no oversight, having formed over the last twelve months to compensate for the army’s lack of experience and manpower. These privately funded paramilitaries are known to have committed widespread human rights abuses and war crimes throughout the conflict.

While the majority of these militias subscribe to ideologies of far-right ultra-nationalism, groups such as the Azov Battalion are openly neo-Nazi in their political orientation. The Guardian newspaper described the group as being the “most serious threat to the Ukrainian government” once the fighting in the east subsides. Kiev has relied heavily on volunteer battalions to clamp down on the country’s separatist rebellions but there are indications that the central government is uneasy with the autonomy and growing political clout of paramilitary organizations.

Members of the infamous Aidar Battalion recently stormed the headquarters of the Defense Ministry and the president’s office after Kiev attempted to disband the group, while others have called for Poroshenko’s resignation over his poor handling of the war effort. Poroshenko earns no domestic political points by taking a pacifist position in this situation. His recent calls for a peacekeeping mission under the aegis of the EU should also be seen as an indicator of insecurity, underscoring’s Kiev’s desire to introduce a European security presence to police the line between his regime and other disparate battalions with political ambitions.

Military Trainers & Arms Transfers

The clearest policy divisions between Washington and European capitals have surfaced over the issue of providing lethal weapons to Kiev. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande were seen as the driving forces behind the latest session of marathon diplomacy talks in the Belarusian capital, Minsk.

Germany, France and other European powers are opposed to supplying Kiev with lethal weapons over fears that doing so would be detrimental to securing a negotiated settlement, possibly leading to a broader shooting war on Europe’s doorstep capable of drawing into major international actors.

Business elites across the EU have also likely placed much pressure on Merkel and Hollande to normalize the situation and persuade Washington to ease sanctions on Russia due to huge economic losses generated by the suspension of trade activities. European leaders themselves do not expect the Minsk ceasefire to hold, as minor clashes have continued to persist, though there are indications have heavy weapons are beginning to be withdrawn from the front lines.

The Obama administration had previously announced plans to send hundreds of US military advisers to support the Ukrainian army and ultra-nationalist volunteer battalions. Any collapse of the already fragile ceasefire agreed upon in Minsk will likely provide the Obama administration with the impetus needed to send lethal arms to Kiev with the acquiesce of Europe.

British Prime David Cameron, under fire domestically for his absence at the Minsk dialogues, has recently announced his government’s intentions to deploy British military personnel to Ukraine as advisers. A strong case can be made that the presence of American and British soldiers, be they trainers or not, violates the framework of the Minsk agreements, which calls for the withdrawal of foreign ‘armed formations’.

The continued deployment of Western military advisers, as well as provocative displays of Nato force, are transparent means to prevent the deescalation of the crisis in Ukraine. Kiev’s backers in the West are essentially aiming to coax direct Russian intervention to justify their own conduct and aggressive mischaracterizations of Moscow. 

It is clear that Russia has allowed the flow of weapons, foreign fighters and Russian volunteers across the border, as well as various forms of assistance from sympathetic private organizations. Moscow certainly supplied intelligence, logistical and political support to the separatist fighters, which have given the latter a clear advantage on the ground.

It is a mistake, however, to view Russia’s conduct in the Donbass region as having offensive objectives. Russian politicians and state media refer to the separatists as ‘self-defense forces,’ and the state has played in a role in enabling the separatists to defend their territory from excessive Ukrainian shelling and advances.

President Vladimir Putin has consistently called for a non-military solution to the crisis that respects Ukraine’s territorial integrity, encouraging the separatists to accept a high degree of autonomy with a federalized, unitary Ukraine. Russia is ultimately interested in having a stable business relationship with a non-aligned, neutral administration in Kiev.

This crisis and all the causalities incurred over the last year could have been wholly avoided had Washington and Brussels not strong-armed the previous Ukrainian government into a zero-sum game: a choice between east and west. The Maidan has long become the albatross around Ukraine’s neck. 

Nile Bowie is a political analyst based in Malaysia who has written for a number of publications, his expertise lies in a number of areas, with a particular focus on Asian politics and geopolitics, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.