Tag Archives: War

Carpet-Bombing History

By Nick Alexandrov
June 29, 2015


Fakhreddin's Castle (top), is pictured in the historical city of Palmyra, Syria (Reuters / Nour Fourat)J. E. Curtis, Keeper of the British Museum’s Middle East collections, was on grim business in Iraq. Armed occupiers held an ancient city there—“tantamount to establishing a military camp around the Great Pyramid in Egypt or around Stonehenge in Britain,” he wrote. The site was “irrevocably contaminated,” he added, suffering “permanent damage that will last forever.”

Curtis was describing Babylon in 2004, under U.S. occupation. But commentary on ISIS ignores Washington’s legacy of cultural ruin, assuming the Islamic State has some unique capacity for wrecking artifacts. The group’s “obliterators,” as historian Simon Schama termed them, “all act from the same instinct of cultural panic that the supreme works of the past will lead people astray from blind, absolute obedience.” Toppling Palmyra would reveal “Isis’s littleness,” architecture critic Rowan Moore asserted, asking “how could anyone be so threatened by ancient ruins, unless they lacked belief in their ability to create something themselves?”

“Palmyra,” Moore emphasized, “is an ancient Roman site whose significance and value is exceeded by very few others: those in Rome itself, Pompeii, possibly Petra in Jordan.” So in his view, a “littleness” rivaling Islamic State’s would motivate, say, bombing raids on Pompeii—which the U.S. and British Air Forces carried out in 1943. The first strike happened August 24, “ironically the anniversary of the eruption of Vesuvius,” according to the Getty Museum’s Kenneth Lapatin. “Damage was incurred at various points throughout the archaeological site (over 160 hits were recorded), and some of its most famous monuments were struck,” with dozens “totally destroyed,” he explains.

The Allies bombed the Cathedral of Benevento that same month. “For 1,100 years this medieval church stood as a small but precious religious monument,” LIFE reported, though after the attack only “the bell tower, parts of the façade and one side wall” remained. “Fire that swept the cathedral burned rare Sixth Century Langobardic manuscripts,” though perhaps “the loss of the cathedral’s famous 12th Century bronze doors” was worse.

Six months later, in February 1944, Allied bombers demolished the Abbey of Monte Cassino, where “the only people killed,” David Hapgood and David Richardson clarify, “were among the civilians.” Dating from the 6th century, the Abbey was “the site where St. Benedict himself had founded the world-famed Benedictine Order,” John S. D. Eisenhower noted. He pointed out that Nazi officials ordered Monte Cassino’s Abbot, Gregorio Diamare—who “could not bring himself to believe that the Allies would destroy such a venerated edifice as the Abbey”—to send its art and archives to a safe location.

Allied bombers brutalized German historic sites for the rest of the war. “The center of Trier, for instance, was subjected to twenty raids between 14 August and 24 December 1944, causing severe damage to the fourth-century AD basilica and the Liebfrauenkirche, one of the oldest Gothic churches in Germany,” Nicola Lambourne writes. After the January 1945 raid on Nuremberg, much “of the historic center was destroyed, including the Albrecht Dürer house and the nineteenth-century building housing the German National Museum.” Sönke Neitzel explains that the February 1945 attack on Dresden badly damaged nineteen of the city’s thirty most significant cultural structures, leveling the other eleven.

And the U.S. Army Air Forces, while firebombing Japan, leveled Kobe’s 700-year-old Yakusenji Temple, Nagoya’s 17th-century Castle, and Tokyo’s Taitokuin mausoleum—“a spectacular complex,” historian William H. Coaldrake affirms—built in 1632. Mark Michael Rowe writesthat “Isshinji, an extremely popular Jōdo temple in Osaka, began collecting anonymous remains in 1887. The ashes were ground up, combined with concrete and molded into life-sized, seated Bone Buddha statues.” When U.S. incendiaries razed it, “the remains of nearly one million people, abandoned and otherwise, had been entrusted to the temple.” Washington’s campaign to ignite these cities also “accounted either directly or indirectly for the destruction of 50 percent of the total book resources in Japanese libraries,” Rebecca Knuth writes.

The destruction was equally broad in North Korea, years later. “Pyongyang is usually presented as an ancient city,” Andrei Lankov observes. “The area has been the site of a major settlement for nearly two millennia,” he acknowledges, but adds that “the present Pyongyang was built almost from scratch in the mid-1950s”—mainly because “a major US bombing campaign that reached its height in 1952” wiped out “some 90 percent of the city,” erasing much of its history. Justin Corfield, in his Historical Dictionary of Pyongyang, lists what was lost. The Kwangbop Buddhist Temple dated to 392; Potong Gate “was one of the ancient city gates of the walled city of Pyongyang, built in the mid-sixth century;” Sungryong Hall, a temple, “was built in 1429,” and like the other structures “destroyed during the Korean War,” Corfield concludes.

Or consider Mỹ Sơn Sanctuary. The Global Heritage Fund explains it “is one of Vietnam’s only archaeological sites to be inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage site and was inhabited from the 4th– through the 15thcenturies AD,” when the Champa Kingdom blossomed. But “a large majority of Mỹ Sơn’s exquisite architecture was destroyed by aerial bombing during a single week of the Vietnam War.” A team of scholars, involved in the “ongoing conservation effort” there, admit their work “cannot change one sad truth: one of the towers that the [B-52] bombing crew saw that day [in August 1969], the temple once described as the ‘most perfect expression of Cham architecture,’ is gone forever.’”

Anthropologist Christina Schwenkel uncovered “another buried history of US aerial bombing in Vietnam: that of the demolished city of Vinh, provincial capital of Nghệ An.” From 1964-1973, “the city was subjected to more than 4,700 air strikes,” during which its “historical and cultural patrimony”—including the 18th-century Diệc Pagoda and 19th-century imperial citadel—was finished off. Mervyn Brown, in his memoir recounting years spent in Laos, describes a similar U.S. bombing. “The destruction of Xieng Khouang, a former royal capital with many beautiful temples and other buildings of historical and artistic interest, was a particular act of cultural vandalism.” The ruin was so complete “that it was not feasible to rebuild the town,” he laments.

There were, in other words, precedents for what the British Museum’s Curtis saw in U.S.-occupied Babylon. And that city’s damage stemmed from Washington’s antiquities policy. “During preparations for the 2003 war on Iraq,” writes journalist Robert Bevan, “US military planners identified 150 important archaeological sites to be avoided. US archaeologists responded with a list of 4,000 vital locations—a degree of ‘duty of protection’ that the Pentagon rejected despite international law demanding it.” Familiar results followed. Vandals torched the National Library and Archives and the Ministry of Religious Endowment’s Koranic Library. Looters hit the Museum of Archaeology. “The US forces did not seek to prevent the destruction here and elsewhere,” Bevan argues, “despite being implored to do so.”

“Why does the nihilistic effort to wipe out an ancient civilization echo so strongly?” Thanassis Cambanis asked in the Boston Globe. He was writing about ISIS, with justifiable outrage. But we should ask another question: Why doesn’t Washington’s global bombing of cultural sites—accompanying mass slaughter—echo at all?

Nick Alexandrov lives in Washington, DC.  He can be reached at: nicholas.alexandrov@gmail.com

Global economic impact of violence reached $14.3 trillion in 2014

By Evan Blake
June 23, 2015
World Socialist Web Site


War is hellThe economic impact of violence on the global economy in 2014 measured a staggering $14.3 trillion, or 13.4 percent of world gross domestic product (GDP), equivalent to the combined economic output of Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom.

This represents a spending increase of $1.9 trillion, or 15.3 percent, since 2008, according to the annual Global Peace Index (GPI) report, compiled by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) think tank. The report defines the economic impact of violence as the “flow on effects on the world economy and the opportunity cost due to the misallocation of resources into non-productive areas associated with violence.”

Most of the total expenditure stems from deaths and displacement due to internal conflict, military spending, GDP losses from conflict, increasing homicide and violent crime rates, and spending on internal security officers, including police.

In total, more than $3 trillion was poured into military spending in 2014, with the US accounting for over $1.3 trillion alone. The study found that expenses related to the military, internal police forces and homicides combined to have the highest impact on costs, accounting for 68.3 percent of the total.

The costs needed to support refugees and internally displaced people have increased by 267 percent since 2008, to $128 billion, as the total number of displaced people reached 59.5 million in 2014, the highest level since World War II. Still, UN peacekeeping costs account for less than 0.17 percent of total violence containment expenditure.

The three most prominent targets of American imperialism in the recent period, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, have seen a substantial portion of their resources squandered on war. The US-stoked civil war in Syria, which has ravaged the country for four years, is estimated to have absorbed 42 percent of the country’s GDP in 2014, while Afghanistan spent 31 percent of its GDP on military and police expenditures, and Iraq spent 30 percent in 2014.

The GPI report ranks the nations of the world according to their “level of peacefulness,” based on 23 different qualitative and quantitative measurements from 162 states, covering 99.6 percent of the world’s population. Since the first report in 2008, the divide between the most and least “peaceful” countries and regions has steadily deepened, as US-led imperialism has plunged large parts of the world into deepening violence.

Syria again ranked on these terms as the least peaceful country in the world, while Libya experienced the most severe decline, according to the ranking system. Ukraine saw the second biggest decline, due to the eruption of fighting between pro-Russian separatist forces and NATO-backed fascist militias in east Ukraine.

The Middle East and North Africa region saw the most marked decline in average rankings, while Europe as a whole continued to see increases in peacefulness, as Iceland was again ranked the most peaceful, followed by Denmark, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Japan, Australia and the Czech Republic.

The US was ranked at 94th place, between Peru and Saudi Arabia. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Central African Republic, in that order, were the bottom five countries in the index.

Significantly, the report found that deaths caused by terrorism increased by 61 percent from 2012-13 and have more than doubled since 2008, resulting in 17,958 people being killed in terrorist attacks in 2013. Of those deaths, 82 percent occurred in just five countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria.

These figures once again expose the essential truth that the so-called War on Terror has in fact empowered terrorist organizations in those countries that have been targeted by American imperialism. Despite the constant invocation of “national security” as the centerpiece of the war, the vast majority of terrorist attacks take place outside the advanced capitalist countries.

While much of the data compiled in the report is useful in portraying the immense scale of the costs of imperialist war and internal political repression, the GPI rankings system is flawed and the authors themselves present a rose-tinted view of the current geopolitical situation. At one point, the report declares that, “Over the last sixty years, the world has become more peaceful. There has been a marked and consistent downturn in levels of violence and conflict since the end of the Second World War.”

Later, however, the report notes that the intensity of military conflict has increased dramatically in recent years, with 180,000 people killed in 2014 alone, a nearly fourfold increase from 49,000 in 2010. However, it glosses over the present threat of a major conflict between nuclear-armed powers and covers up of the machinations of the US-led imperialist order, effectively playing into the hands of the forces spearheading the drive to war.

Regarding the potential for such a global conflict arising from the ongoing disputes in the South China Sea, which are being driven through the US “pivot to Asia” directed against China, the authors write: “Although the likelihood of further military skirmishes in the disputed waters is high, a large-scale military engagement remains unlikely.”

In their overview of the crisis in Ukraine, the line of the US State Department comes through clearly: “The conflict began with Russia’s military takeover of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula following the overthrow of the government of Viktor Yanukovych in late February. From April it extended to the Ukrainian mainland, when separatist militias—made up of some locals, as well as mercenaries linked to the ousted regime, local criminal gangs and Russian nationalist volunteers—began to seize urban centres across south-east Ukraine, backed heavily by Russian weapons, intelligence and finance, with regular Russian troops intervening directly if necessary to prevent a separatist defeat.”

There is no mention whatsoever of the role played by the US, which backed far-right nationalist and outright fascistic organizations such as Svoboda and the Right Sector to overthrow Yanukovych, and hand-picked the emergent government with puppets like Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and billionaire oligarch President Petro Poroshenko.

Above all, the worldwide escalation in military spending and domestic policing indicate the advanced stage of the buildup to a new world war involving the major imperialist powers.

NATO allies Saudi Arabia and Israel edge closer to War with Iran

By Steven MacMillan
March 19, 2015
New Eastern Outlook


640x-1A recent report by an Israeli TV station revealed that Saudi Arabia would allow Israeli jets to use its airspace to attack Iran, demonstrating the clandestine strategic alliance between Saudi Arabia and Israel. As the Times of Israel reported in an article titled: Saudis ‘would let Israeli jets use their air space to attack Iran’:

“The Saudis have declared their readiness for the Israeli Air Force to overfly Saudi air space en route to attack Iran if an attack is necessary,” the TV report [from Channel 2] said. All that they ask is “some kind of progress” on the Palestinian issue. Being able to use Saudi airspace would allow Israeli planes a shortcut to reach Iran without having to fly around the Persian Gulf, taking up precious time and fuel.”

Even though Riyadh and Tel Aviv have no official diplomatic ties in addition to there being dramatic cultural and religious differences between them, the two nations increasingly have a convergence of interests in the region. Both countries are close allies of the West and share analogous positions on Syria and Iran.

Saudi Arabia and Israel may be given the green light to attack Iran on behalf of NATO powers if NATO feels it could not sell a direct war in Iran to their populations back home. Regime change in Syria is a prerequisite before an overt attack on Iran can take place however, as Damascus is an important Iranian ally in the Middle East. If a military assault on Iran occurs it would be difficult for the arena of conflict to be contained to the Middle East, as it has the potential to rapidly escalate into a wider conflict involving Russia and China.

Western nations have been engaged in attempting to covertly overthrow the present Iranian regime for decades, a country that has been placed under sanctions by an assortment of nations for years. Regime change in Iran has been a dream of Western foreign policy strategists for decades, with Iran pinpointed in astrategic paper written in 2000 by the neoconservative thinktank, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), alongside countries such as Iraq, Libya and Syria. Retired US four star general and former NATO commander, Wesley Clark, also revealed a plan circulating around the Pentagon in 2001 to attack 7 countries in 5 years, with Iran named as one of the seven.

Saudi Arabia and Israel have a real fear of Iranian power in the Middle East as Tehran is a naturally dominant player due to it possessing abundant natural resources, in addition to having the 3rd largest population in the region and having an ancient and rich history. Only a powerhouse of a nation could endure so many restrictions on their economy and not collapse and be forced into subservience to the West. 

If Iran was to be struck, Tehran would most likely retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, where approximately one fifth of the world’s oil supply travels through. Tehran threatened in 2011 that it would block the Strait if the West imposed more sanctions on the nation, with Iran’s navy chief Admiral Habibollah Sayari remarking that closing the strait would be “easy“. As the former Special Adviser in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, Matthew Kroenig, expresses in an article for the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) publication Foreign Affairs in 2012 titled: Time to Attack Iran:

“Those wary of a U.S. strike also point out that Iran could retaliate by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow access point to the Persian Gulf through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply travels. And even if Iran did not threaten the strait, speculators, fearing possible supply disruptions, would bid up the price of oil, possibly triggering a wider economic crisis at an already fragile moment.”

Kroenig continues in the article to call for “surgical” strikes on Iran:

“Yet Iran’s rapid nuclear development will ultimately force the United States to choose between a conventional conflict and a possible nuclear war. Faced with that decision, the United States should conduct a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, absorb an inevitable round of retaliation, and then seek to quickly de-escalate the crisis.”

A follow up article in Foreign Affairs by Jamie M. Fly and Gary Schmitt titled: The Case for Regime Change in Iran is even more belligerent, as the authors believe Kroenig’s strategy doesn’t go far enough:

“If the United States seriously considers military action, it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all.”

The West along with regional allies including Saudi Arabia and Israel justify attacking Iran through exclaiming that their nuclear program is a nefarious initiative aimed at creating weapons of mass destruction, which Tehran would use against its enemies. Iran however objects to this accusation and claims the program is purely aimed at peaceful energy production. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently stated that “we don’t need an atomic bomb”, adding that the world’s nuclear powers are not safer for having atomic weapons.

The Elephant in the Room – Israel’s Nuclear Program

The elephant in the room that is rarely brought into the discussion is that the state whose leaders spend a large percentage of their time salivating at the prospect of attacking Iran, namely Israel, has been a nuclear power for decades who now possesses approximately 80 nuclear weapons according to some estimates. Whether Iran is really set on building the bomb or not, Israel’s nuclear program is directly related to Iran’s nuclear ambitions yet there is virtually no international outcry against the Israeli program.  The hypocrisy of the Western nations in regards to Iran’s nuclear program is simply astounding considering their zealous support for Israel. What right has the US got to lecture any country on nuclear weapons anyway, dare we forget that America was the nation who dropped atomic bombs – an act which had very little military or strategic merit – on Japan which was on the verge of surrendering in 1945. 

The government in Tehran is continuously working to enhance their defensive capabilities in preparation for an attack in the future, with Iran recently activating its new national missile defense system dubbed the ‘Real Iron Dome’ – a clear reference to Israel’s Iron Dome system. Mohammad Hassan Aboutorabifard, vice speaker of Iran’s parliament stated that the defense system provides “the highest deterrence power in the Middle East”.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Al Qaeda’s Bookkeeper Spills the Beans

By Eric Zuesse
February 11, 2015
Washingtons Blog


Screen Shot 2015-02-10 at 10.09.39 PMZacarias Moussaoui was the bookkeeper for Al Qaeda, but the U.S. intelligence services have been keeping this fact secret as much as they can, because what he knows about the crucial financial backers of Al Qaeda can be very damaging to the U.S. aristocracy, which is heavily oil-based and closely allied with the Saudi royal family, which created Al Qaeda in order to please the Saudi clerics, who are Wahhabist Muslims who constantly threaten the royals with exposure of their economic and sexual corruption unless the royals finance the spread of the Wahhabist sect (such as by Al Qaeda), and thereby finance the spread of those clerics’ own international influence and power.

Or, so says the former bookkeeper of Al Qaeda, who was selected by Al Qaeda’s military chief, Abu Hafs (also known as “Mohammed Atef”), to serve Osama bin Laden in that capacity: Zacarias Moussaoui. This is his testimony, in brief.

If you will look at the wikipedia article on Moussaoui, it says nothing whatsoever about his having graduated with a Masters in International Export Business degree from the Institute of Export in France, the French affiliate of the UK’s Institute of Export. That’s how he described himself on the very first day of his testimony. Then, on the second day of his testimony, he was asked what qualifications he had presented to Osama bin Laden, and he answered in more detail, and listed several:

I had the Master degree in International Business from the University — University of South Bank in London, and also a — a diploma of the Institute of Export in London, and also a business degree of Commerce Technology from French — a French degree, okay, and — so that’s the main credential I think for the education, okay. And, of course, I speak English and French, and colloquial Arabic.

Q: Were there many other members of al-Qaeda at that time who had that kind of business education?

A: Absolutely no one.

So, that’s what had prepared him to become the person whom Abu Hafs specifically selected to be the organization’s bookkeeper.

The financial donations were crucial; and, in Arabic as well as most other cultures, any organization that fails to serve its donors is considered bad — a donation buys an obligation, and any organization that fails to fulfill on an obligation is taking that donation like mere theft from the donor. Therefore: the financial backers were everything, they were all of the actual motivation behind the organization. The organization exists to do the donors’ will.

So: wikipedia’s article (perhaps in order to veil the real individuals who are behind Al Qaeda, etc.) ignores Moussaui’s role of bookkeeper, and presents him instead as having just been a regular fighter for Al Qaeda — though he was hardly just that (to the extent that he was that at all, which is actually debatable, but it certainly wasn’t his main function, especially not during the key years, 1998-1999). He said that he also received from Al Qaeda training in explosives, and he described, in the final fourth day of his testimony, various aborted terrorist plans for which he had been assigned a role, but that was the least interesting of his four days of testimony.

Inasmuch as those roles came to nothing, his only real role was as the bookkeeper; and, then (in his third day of testimony), he also describes trips that he took as a direct financial courier between bin Laden and the Saudi royals.

Wikipedia reluctantly admits and then says nothing about the CIA’s editing wikipedia articles, but almost all agencies of the U.S. aristocracy (and this includes all large international U.S.-based corporations) also do that as a routine part of their PR. In fact, on 16 August 2007, Reuters even had an article, “CIA, FBI Computers Used for Wikipedia Edits.” And this CIA editing of wikipedia continues.

So, Moussaoui’s crucial knowledge of whom the key funders of Al Qaeda were, is ignored in the general press, which relies heavily on wikipedia, which in turn relies on the CIA and other editing/censorship organizations, which in turn rely on their controlling stockholders and (when the organization happens to be a newspaper or other medium) also relies on their advertisers (which might be connected to the given ‘news’ medium’s owners, so that an advertisement in it becomes part of mutual backscratching between aristocrats — the owner of the medium, and the owner of the company that’s being advertised — and not merely a buy-and-sell of an individual ad, such as the case will be whenever a typical smaller business places an ad).

Moussaoui has been held incommunicado by the U.S. Government between 2001 and late 2014, and so you probably don’t know that he had been Osama bin Laden’s bookkeeper, and, later, his financial courier, but that’s what he was, and that’s also why he has been held incommunicado, because both roles connect the Saudi royals crucially with Osama bin Laden.

However, evidently, President Barack Obama and the American Establishment that he represents, are now trying to put pressure on the Saudi royals. (The Senate Democrats who had wanted the 28 pages of damning evidence against the Saudi royals to be included in the published report by Senator Feinstein’s Committee report on the CIA’s role in torture, are leading there.) This has nothing to do with the recent death, on 23 January 2015, of the Saudi King and ‘U.S. ally’ (after King Fahd died in 2005) Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al Saud, because the first interview with Moussaoui occurred on 20 October 2014 and none of the four interviews was made public (uploaded to the Internet) until 3 February 2015. These interviews were in process before the king’s death.

For whatever reason, Moussaoui was now being allowed, for the very first time, to testify, under oath (and he’s a fanatical Muslim who swore upon the Quran, so truthfulness was binding upon him as a Muslim, which he devoutly is), in a long-running U.S. court case where his testimony had been sought, over which the Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration have exercised control. Until recently, this case, which had been brought by some 9/11 families who were wanting to find out whom the individuals behind the deaths of their loved-ones had been, was simply squelched, first by Bush, and then by Obama.

The first part of the four-part transcript of Moussaoui’s testimony under oath contains the most-basic information. This reporter has spot-checked the individuals that he names there and throughout his testimony, and I have not found any that, on the basis of previously released reliable information about those named individuals, any of them was other than as Moussaoui has described them.

Here are highlights of what Moussaoui said. I have boldfaced what I consider to be the most important parts.

First, as taken from the first day’s transcript:


Q: What — what was bin Laden’s attitude towards the Saudi ulema [the religious scholars]?

A: It was of complete reverence and obedience. [It was like a Roman Catholic’s attitude] toward the Pope. …

Q: Did bin Laden believe that what he was doing with his organization was consistent with the teachings of the ulema?

A: He was doing it with the express advice and consent and directors of the ulema. …

Q: Did you receive any information indicating that the [bin Laden] family in general was continuing to send money to Osama bin Laden?

A: Yes, I receive — I used to — to enter into [the] database [of donations] a financial document of money of — of account of the bin Laden group within Saudi Arabia; al — also when we wanted to buy spare parts of — okay, the — the spare part were bought by the Saudi bin Laden group, and was sending to — to Jeddah, and then after to Karachi. …

Q: You told us a little bit ago that members of the Saudi royal family were contributing to bin Laden’s organization during this time [1998], the royal family and government of the Kingdom have said that that’s an illogical idea because bin Laden was the enemy of the — of Saudi Arabia. How do you respond to that?

A: This is a complete misleading explanation for assumption of people who are not familiar with the way the Saudi government is established, because the Saudi government is — they have two heads of the snake, they have the Saudi, like Al Saud, and the Wahhabi [clerics] were in charge of the Islamic Code of the Islam — or Islamic power in Saudi Arabia, okay, and that’s why they have the name ‘Wahhabi,’ okay, okay. So the Saudi cannot keep power in Saudi Arabia without having the agreement, okay, of the Wahhab, the Wahhabi, the scholar, okay. …

So … father of Osama bin Laden was best friend, he was known, okay, of — of — of Fahd Al Saud, the ruler, the King of Saudi Arabia, and he’s the one — Al Saud — okay, who give to bin Laden [money] to rebuild the Holy Mosque in Mecca and to rebuild the Holy Mosque in Medina and also to rebuild the Holy Mosque in Jerusalem, okay. So the three mosques … the three holy sites in Islam was built by the father of Osama bin Laden, okay. So bin Laden was pure — a pure Wahhabi and will obey the Wahhabi scholar to the letter. …  If you were being branded an apostate Osama bin Laden most likely 100 percent will not have any busines with you and wage war, but at the fath he will not be — will not be allowed to wage war unless he was guaranteed success, and, so, the ulema told him not to wage war against Al Saud because Fahd was going to die and, therefore, that Al — Abdullah Al Saud — will take power and he will reestablish a true power [total Islam], okay. You have to see that on — after the seizure of Mecca, okay, you — after the seizure of Mecca by Juhaiman, okay, the — the Saudi Kingdom reverted to a more autotic(phonetic) or more drastic Draconion Islam 100 percent in the hand of the ulema, the scholar of Saudi Arabia, so Bin Baz, Uthaimeen, who used to be the mentor, the scholar of Juhaiman, the person who make the city of Mecca, okay. So bin Laden was the child of Wahhabi, the child of the — of the — of the scholar. …

Q: What would be the specific benefit to the Saudi royal family in this 1998, ’99 period to giving money to bin Laden’s organization?

A: There is — there — there is many benefit. First of all it was a — a matter of survival for them, okay, because all of the mujahideen, okay — I believe — I believe all of them, okay, the hard core believe that Za — Al Fahd was an apostate, so they would have wanted jihad against Saudi Arabia, so it was the policy for the Saudi government to finance jihad in the first Af — Afghanistan — the first jihad in Afghanistan, then in Bosnia, then before that in Tajikistan, and Saudi used to send people, and you could travel and you could — as long as you don’t do stuff in your back — back — backyard.

Q: Okay, in your view was the ule — ulema demanding that the royal family support bin Laden’s organization?

A: If — it was a — it was a credential to the proof that they were emphatic in an apostate.

Q: It was a proof for whom?

A: For — for — for — to give to — money to bin Laden could be used by the Saudi to say to the ulema, “Look, see, we are not against Islam or the jihad, we finance bin Laden.”

Q: And that would assist them in their relationship with the ulema?

A: It — it will guarantee that the ulema will not raise their — their voice and their concern about many thing wrong with Saudi Arabia, like, you know, widespread homosexuality, it’s endemic, okay; usury, you know, interest rate in bank; American troop on the ground, you — I think — I don’t remember exactly the date, but you stay long time in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, okay, and Shaykh Hudhaify even make a speech and say that you — you are to — you are to leave, and he’s — he’s a — he was a — Hudhaify was the — the Imam of the second holy site in Islam, Medina. So he — bin Laden was also — was proof that — because when — bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the people that come to him was the proof that these people were not apostate, ’cause they say, “You don’t finance jihad if you don’t believe in Allah.”

Q: The money that was coming from the Saudi donors, how important was it to bin Laden’s ability to maintain the organization?

A:  It was crucial. I mean, without the money of the — of the Saudi you will have nothing.

All of that is from the first of the four days of testimony from him. It’s at:


The second day is at


In it is this:

Q: Do you remember the amounts of any of the donations reflected on the database you built?

A: I do, ye — yes. I mean, you talk about million of dollar, that’s — million of dollar. You had — for example, they — depending — the — the — the Saudi, okay — the Saudi prince, you know, Abdullah — and he was a new prince at the time, you know — they will give 2, $3 million, okay, and it was — each time they will have interaction with somebody from there, because most of the — the top-ranking close to Osama bin Laden were also from the biggest family in Saudi Arabia.


A: So when I say each time for country that you have these people going to Saudi Arabia, or Bin Baz or Uthaimeen or Shehri, or Hammoud al-Uqlaa, they will come back and say to Sakaf, okay, he gave X amount of money for this, okay. Initially I heard it and initially I — I wrote for — for — for Shaykh Abu Hafs and Shaykh Saeed, and I will only know that he brought 1 million [dollars], 2 million and 3 million, and it was something that was not a big deal for — for them, you know, they are — it was something that very common in the inner circle of the Saudi, because they all are from the richest family in Saudi Arabia.

Q: And all of this money was used to sustain al-Qaeda’s operations, correct?

A: Absolutely. I mean, all this.


Q: To clarify, you’re saying that the al-Qaeda members received salaries?

A: They do, absolutely.


The third day is at


Q: At a certain point in time did you receive an additional assignment from Osama bin Laden to deliver letters on his behalf?

A: I did receive — Osama bin Laden ask me to — to — to take a pack of letter to Saudi Arabia. …

I went to — by private plane to Riyadh, and that’s the first time I made to meet with the Prince — what you — what he call himself — Emir, Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud, okay. And the — the day after, okay, I — I — I went and toured — toured a big palace, okay, okay, and I spent one night there, overnight, the morning — I believe it was in the morning — I — I went to a — with Turki, he came to get me, and we went to a — to a — a meeting room, or big room, okay, where there was Abdullah and Bandar [called ‘Bandar Bush’ in Washington, because he’s so close to the Bush family] — Prince Abdullah, Prince Bandar, okay — and I give Prince — I remember Prince — to give letter to Prince Abdullah, Prince Bandar, Prince Salman, and Waleed bin Talal, okay. And there was other letter that Prince Turki told me that the people were not available, okay, and I say he wanted me — he wanted me to give it to him, I say no, that Shaykh Osama said to give them by hand.


Q: During your first trip do you recall approximately how many letters Shaykh Osama gave you?

A: I think seven or eight.

Q: Do you recall whom they were addressed to?

A: Only the people — I recall the people that I believe I was familiar, the name I heard before, okay, Abdullah, Fahd, okay, Salman, Waleed bin Talal, Bandar, Turki of course, and Shaykh — Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Uthaimeen, Shaykh Shehri, and Shaykh Hammoud al-Uqlaa, but Shaykh Osama told me that the — the letter for the — for — for the ulema I could give it — give it to Turki, but the letter for the — for the prince, no, he didn’t want it.

Q: Did Osama bin Laden at that time identify Prince Turki as your principal point of contact for this trip?

A: He told me, yes, he said that you will — you will go and you see Prince Turki.


Q: Do you know what the letters were about?

A: No, I don’t know what the letter were about — because Osama bin Laden didn’t tell me, but I know that it — at the time the — the — the — the talk inside the — the circle of Osama bin Laden was about the fact that King Fahd was very sick, he was going to die, and it was to — to know about who was going to take the succession, and there was competing between Nawaf, who was Chief of the National Guard, or — okay, one who had the — Sultan who — another bro — brother — they have seven brother to — who — who are taking power, that was what it was about, that’s the general idea I had, but I don’t — I never saw the written letter or never — never Osama bin Laden told me specifically what it was about, no.

Q Do you have any understanding why in that context Osama bin Laden would have been sending letters to both members of the royal family and the senior ulema [the scholars]?

A: My understanding from talking with people like Abu Basir al-Wahishi who become the — the head of al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula, who I used to be close to, okay, or Halad or Shaykh Abu Hasan, Shayk Mujahideen, Shaykh Aman, and Shaykh Abul Sef — my understanding that they — they want to know who they should support, because — and they supported Abdullah, who become the King, okay, and that’s what it was about. Because for them the — the Prince Abdullah was the lesser of all the evil, because Nawaf was known as a extremely anti-Islamic person, okay, Sul — Sultan was being seen as a sodomite, okay, okay, and — and — and the Abdullah was seen as a traditional Arab most — mostly be — be fasiq and touching in — in criminal activity. When I say “criminal activity,” fornication, homosexuality, drinking, but still a Muslim, so — but Nawaf was branded an apostate, Fahd was an apostate, so for — at the time the — the — my understanding is that Osama bin Laden, and be — in talking with Abu Hafs — Commander Abu Hafs al Mauritani and the people of — of Saeed and the people of — of — of al-Qaeda ash-Shura, they were seeing that it’s better for ul — for al-Qaeda to — to — to accept Sul — what’s his name — Abdullah — Prince Abdullah than to have — to declare an apostate and to be against him, that will give him more chance to — Nawaf and Sultan — to take power.

Q Why would the ulema have a say in that process?

A: Ulema, essentially they are the king maker. If — if the ulema say that you should not take power, you are not going to take power. And the ulema were important because they are the people who — who — who certify the Islamic legality of the jihad of Osama bin Laden. So Nawaf, Sultan, all the prince, they were giving money, helping Osama bin Laden so he know the — to get, let’s say, favor, or especially not to get the — the wrath of the ulema — the Wahhabi ulema and to declare apostate, because they could — they could, let’s say, put forward their — their donation and activity for Osama bin Laden to counteract or to contradict anybody who said that people are apostate because, look, he is drinking, he is doing fornication, he is now engaging in homosexuality, so he is not a Muslim, okay, the bad news anymore he is not a Muslim, or he is a friend of the America, but it’s okay for — he is doing all this, but, look, he is giving money to Osama bin Laden, he is sending people, material, blah, blah, blah, and — and everything, all this charity work.

9/11 was basically a regular, aristocratically and clerically backed, charity operation. People who don’t know a lot about history might find that idea difficult to wrap their heads around, but, to anyone who has studied the history of many cultures and many religions, it actually seems quite normal, almost as normal as war itself — the ultimate authoritarian expression. If anything is abnormal, it is democracy: the lack of authoritarianism, the concern for the public instead of for the kings and preachers.


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.

Is Tolerance of Dishonesty the Fundamental Problem in Our Culture?

By Eric Zuesse
February 10, 2015
Washington’s Blog


Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 10.42.24 PM

NBC-TV’s star news-anchor Brian Williams got caught repeatedly lying and fabricating his fake-‘courageous’ personal involvement in news stories that he had ‘reported.’ At LinkedIn, Rob Wyse headlined recently, “Brian Williams Essentially Lied on His Resume, Or Exaggerated The Truth,” and he noted there:

“Whether you call it a lie, or an exaggeration — it is a breach of trust. And that is what is looming over Brian Williams. A breach of his public trust. He is a trusted figure in our society. Perhaps the position of news anchor does not hold the same vaulted [he meant vaunted] esteem and prestige as in the days of Edward R. Murrow, or Walter Cronkite — but nonetheless, Williams is in a position of responsibility and trust. And when trust is broken, you almost never gain it back.”

Most of the (thus far) 507 reader comments to that post are negative toward the post. A typical one was: “Rather silly article…he has a resume that needs no padding. So therefore this posting shows very clearly the completely misguiding value system the ‘press’ and the writer of this post has. Don’t be the problem.”

Another: “To paraphrase Tom Brady, nobody had died over this.”

Another: “Big Deal, everyone pads their Resume.”

In a culture like that, one can easily understand why the U.S. President (his Solicitor General) presented a friend-of-the-court brief arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court, that no one should be able to be penalized in any court in this country for having lied in a political campaign.

The President of the United States wants courts and the law to stay out of monitoring the verbal honesty, and out of penalizing any demonstrable lying, in political campaigns. A 9-0 (unanimous!) decision, written by Clarence Thomas, had the 9 members of the nation’s highest court agree with the President’s position.

The President’s lawyer had argued for “free speech” and said that a law in Ohio banning provable lying in political campaigns constituted an unconstitutional restriction on the speech that is the most important of all to be protected, which is speech regarding political matters. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the President, because they found that there was “a credible threat of enforcement of the Ohio law.” They even said: “The threat of future enforcement is substantial,” which is “of particular concern because of the burden they [‘legal proceedings’] impose on electoral speech” (i.e., the ‘burden’ to prove that one wasn’t lying in a political campaign — a ‘burden’ that doesn’t even present itself if the given allegation that was made during the campaign was factually true — a ‘burden’ that is possible to arise only if the given allegation was actually false, so that the given allegation needed to be either reckless or else an outright lie, in order for a court to be able even to hear the case at all, under the Ohio law). Moreover, the ‘Justices’ went on, “this Court need not decide whether the threat of Commission proceedings standing alone is sufficient; here, those proceedings are backed by the additional threat of criminal prosecution.” There, most emphatically, the 9 ‘Justices’ ruled, unanimously, that lying in politics can never be a crime, anywhere in this country. The President, and other political liars or would-be political liars, had won, hands-down.

Who had lost? A politician who had been defeated by a political lie had initially brought this case; he won it in a lower court and the liars (the “petitioners” in this case before the U.S. Supreme Court) were here appealing that lower court’s ruling that had been in the victim’s favor; but what about the voters whose votes had been based upon that lie and so who had voted (on the basis of that falsehood) for his opponent? Both the U.S. Supreme Court, and the U.S. President, simply ignored the voters, or the voters’ rights — their rights to avoid being deceived by lying politicians and to avoid having their votes mentally forced (by means of those lies) in favor of liars, and in disfavor of honest people — were simply being ignored in this ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, America’s highest Court. Supposedly, the U.S. Constitution provides no protection to their rights, to those rights, of voters. Supposedly, in an authentic democracy, outright political fraud is acceptable: voters may be “lied into” voting for and against things. Supposedly, in an authentic democracy, voters may be fooled, and elections may be based upon lying to the public, lying about matters of political importance. The politician whose re-election might have been stolen by a political liar or agents on his behalf, was the only potentially wronged party in this case (according to the ‘Justices’), but the right to lie, especially in politics, is, according to the U.S. Constitution, a higher right, according to all 9 ‘Justices’; and legal proceedings about a lie “would impose a substantial hardship on petitioners, forcing them to choose between refraining from core political speech on the one hand, or engaging in that speech and risking costly Commission proceedings and criminal prosecution on the other.”

Courts are not normally so concerned about any “substantial hardship” for complying with a legal obligation, but this court was, when the legal obligation required to avoid lying in politics: the First Amendment has, in this regard, become the Supreme Court’s “open sesame” to unlimited lying in politics, and not only (as in the Court’s infamous 2010 Citizens United decision) to unlimited money in politics (which was, however, a totally partisan, 5-to-4 split in this Court).

And, so, if a politician or anyone who is for or against him, has the right to lie to the public about him or her, or about this-issue-or-that-issue, then does not any mere employee or else job-applicant have the right to lie on a resume (which is strictly a private issue), and doesn’t any ’news reporter’ then also have the right to lie about anything at all — even political matters? If the courts should not get involved in this matter of political truthfulness, when the interests are clearly public ones, then why should lying by anyone, in any lesser, merely private business, matter — such as the employment of Brian Williams — why should any such person have to face penalties of any sort (even just a termination of employment), for ‘merely’ lying?

If Brian Williams lied about himself so as to increase his viewership and thus now be ‘earning’ $10 million per year and be at the top of his ‘profession,’ as he is and did, then who cares about voters, viewers, or other ‘little guys,’ who are deceived and thus manipulated by such people — either to view such ‘journalists’, or to vote in this or that way? As Rob Wyse courageously (since it’s in a culture that blames the victim and that admires the skill of the victimizer in such matters) admitted, in his own particular instance:

“I was a dedicated viewer even when he was on CNBC from 2002-2004 with a prime-time news broadcast. And, Williams has people coming to his defense, for example CNBC’s Larry Kudlow” (who also gains viewers and huge wealth by publicly misrepresenting things). 

To assist thinking about this (which is a legal matter that’s also unquestionably a moral one), I would suggest to consider that there are fundamentally only three distinct types of force (or “coercion”), each one of which ought to be illegal, and even criminally so (since there are victims in all three):

First, of course, there is the obvious type, violence or the threat of violence, which is force against the body of the victim.

Second (which is only slightly less obvious), there is theft or the threat of theft, which is force against the victim’s property.

Third (which is the least obvious of all), is deception, which is force against the victim’s mind.

The first two types of crime are physical, but the third one is spiritual: it is force against the person’s essence, the person’s beliefs, the person’s values; it is force used against the person’s consciousness, manipulating that victim by means of deceit. In this sense, it is the most vile, because it manipulates not only what that person is (including alive or dead), but who that person is: Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or whatever. It manipulates the victim’s personal identity, the individual’s values, the individual’s character.

The lower classes tend more toward using the first two types of coercion; the upper classes tend more toward using the third. Consequently, a culture that has been shaped by its upper classes will strongly favor deception, as compared to violence and theft: only the latter two will be severely penalized, in an aristocracy. (Consequently, the rich, who find theft the most threatening, will love this pro-aristocracy Supreme Court, which protects them from their main fear and which also leaves them virtually total freedom to use their main form of coercion against the public.)

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which had that original intent, but two centuries of increasing rule by the top economic class have increasingly cemented-in this strong legal preference for fraud as opposed to theft and violence. President Obama strongly supports the protection of the top-rank fraudsters, the megabuck CEOs whose MBS frauds brought down the economy in 2008.

The readers of Rob Wyse’s commentary who responded like “To paraphrase Tom Brady, nobody had died over this,” were presenting the most common rationalization for preferring fraudsters over thieves or thugs: “nobody has died” from fraud. In Brian Williams’s case, a slight possibility exists that that is true, but how many people have died from George W. Bush’s deceits regarding Iraq (just to cite the most obvious recent example of mass-murder via deceit), and how many people have died from the tobacco industry’s deceits about the safety of smoking (just to mention those two examples, which are both passionately defended by Republicans, unlike the current one, which was 9-to-0 bi-partisan)?

In other words: anyone who defends the right of any liar to lie (and especially in political matters, which can have huge consequences) is defending someone who should rather be treated as being a criminal, but it seems that the vast majority of the American public nonetheless believe that way: they have been culturally fooled by the aristocracy.

And that, it seems, is the real issue here: the deception of the American public has been massively successful. It’s a massive ongoing crime that protects the most elite of crooks in America. According to our Supreme Court, those people are virtually immune from any serious prosecutions even if they’ve actually poisoned or otherwise killed millions by their frauds, or lied the nation into invasion and war. It’s “protected speech.” The victims aren’t protected.

A more profoundly “two-tiered system of ‘justice’” can hardly be imagined. This Court is consequently full-throated in support of violating the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. (However, the Supreme Court on 9 and 12 December 2000 used an entirely novel interpretation of that same Clause in order to appoint George W. Bush as President, on what turned out to be a 5-to-4 vote, the only U.S. Presidential ‘election’ that was won and lost by a one-vote margin where it really counted — among those ‘Justices’ — and also the only occasion in modern times when it was Republicans who were arguing, and on entirely imaginative grounds, that this was an Equal Protection case, and the Democrats who argued that the case was not that, at all, but that the Republicans were instead using the Equal Protection Clause against its original and constant intent. So much, then, for “original intent” instead of politics, deciding what “the Law” ‘actually’ says.)

If America tolerates dishonesty, as it clearly seems to, then, as Cassius said in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar:

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

How right he was — and not in the political sense!


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.

The Ideology of the New Ukraine

By Eric Zuesse
February 2, 2015
Washington’s Blog, February 1, 2015


The ideology of the new, post-coup, Ukraine, is the ideology of its leaders. Above all, Dmitriy Yarosh, the founder of Right Sector, is that; but so too are Andrei Beletsky, the founder of Azov Battalion; and Andriy Parubiy and Oleh Tyahnybok, the co-founders of the “Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine,” the Party which, at the CIA’s urging, changed its name in 2004 to “Freedom” or “Svoboda,” in order to sell it better in the West. All of these leaders are leaders in this new Government, but not at its nominal top, because the U.S. regime doesn’t want the ties of its new Government to Hitler’s Nazi Party to be so obvious to Americans or to Europeans — it would be bad PR, especially because the United States lost so many men fighting against Hitler’s forces, and against the fascisms and racisms of Tojo and of Mussolini, all of which (and especially Hitler’s views) are basically boiled down here in the statement quoted below (only replacing “Ukraine” where Hitler said “German,” because this is a Ukrainian nazi, not a member of the original nazi party, which was the National Socialist Party of Germany).

The ideology of this Government was best expressed in 2010 by Andrei Biletsky; and the high points in his statement are here being boldfaced. The translation provided from the original Ukrainian, is mainly via google chrome auto-translate, but is clarified by minor changes from me, Eric Zuesse, in order to improve readability. Some terms are not translatable on the Web; and, so, someone who knows the Ukrainian language should improve on the translation that is provided here, and is invited to provide such an improved translation, either alongside this one, or else at a different site. But, here is the best that I can come up with:

The Ukrainian text is here:




Here is the translation:

Ukrainian Social Nationalism

[symbol is presented here of the inverted Nazi Wolfsangel sign]

The main idea of mystical Social Nationalism is its creation, consisting not of piles of separate individuals united mechanistically into something called “Ukrainian” and the presence of Ukrainian passport, but instead a single National biological organism, which will consist of a new people — a physically, intellectually and spiritually more highly developed people. From the mass of individuals will thus come forth the nation, and the faint start of modern man: Superman.

Social Nationalism is based on a number of fundamental principles that clearly distinguish it from other right-wing movements. This triad is: socialism, racism, imperialism. 

I. Socialism. We fight to create a harmonious national community. We argue that cutting social rozmezhovanist leads to decay and disintegration of Spirit of the national community, as well as fostering selfishness. We vidmitayemo being rich (provided the wealth acquired by them fair and socially useful work), but rejected the possibility of the poor. Every Ukrainian irrespective of the nature of the work should have a decent social status and material security. “I am ashamed to be poor in a rich country, even more ashamed to be rich in a poor country.” 

On the principle of socialism follows our complete negation of democracy and liberalism, which generate rozbytthya Nation isolated on gray power unit and a crowd of famous personalities (ochlocracy). Instead, we put forward the idea of national solidarity, the natural hierarchy and discipline, as the basis of our new society. Not a “democratic vote” crowd, who can not give councils to their own life, much less to the life of the State, but instead natural selection of the best representatives of the Nation — born-leaders as Ukraine’s leaders. Anyone who believes that this system of government is unacceptable, let him think, and if acceptable modern power system in which the prostitute and the Academy have equal say where degraded addict or gay equally valued in the election of the commander of the armored division. People by nature are born with different abilities and abilities and therefore the greatest happiness of man — when it finds its own place in the national hierarchy and conscientiously fulfills its purpose in life. 

II. Racism. All our nationalism is nothing — just a castle in the sand — without reliance on the foundation of blood Races. Traditional (postwar, postounivskomu) nationalism has put the cart before the horse – claim that the nation is linguistic, cultural or territorial and economic phenomenon. We certainly do not exclude the value of spiritual, cultural and linguistic factors, as well as territorial patriotism. But our deep conviction is that all this only derivatives from our race, our racial nature. If Ukrainian spirituality, culture and language are unique, it is only because our racial nature is unique. If Ukraine will become paradise on earth, it is only because our Race turned it so. 

Accordingly, treatment of our national body should start with racial purification of the Nation. And then in a healthy body can be regenerated a Race healthy national spirit, and its culture, language and everything else. Apart from the question of purity, we must pay attention to matters of usefulness to Races. Ukrainians — it’s part (and one of the largest and highest quality) of the European White Races. Races that produce a great civilization, the highest human achievement. The historic mission of our Nation, a watershed in this century, is thus to lead the White peoples of the world in the final crusade for their survival. It is to lead the war against Semites and the sub-humans they use.

III. Imperialism. We change the slogans “Independent Ukraine,” “United Ukraine” and “Ukrainians,” by an imperial nation that has a long history. Throughout its existence, the Ukrainians had at least two superpowers – Great Scythia and Kievan Rus. The task of the present generation is to create a Third Empire [a Ukrainian Third Reich] — Great Ukraine. This question, oddly enough, is not so much political as biological. Any living organism in nature seeks to expand, reproduce itself, increase its numbers. This law is universal and Paramecium caudatum, and for the person and for the Nation-Race. Suspension means extinction in nature — death. The slowdown in population growth leads to biological death of Nations, the suspension of political expansion, and decline of the state. Thousands of times we have heard stenannya pseudo-nationalist oppression of us Poles and Moscow, their curses to the empires. Social Nationalism is not so, he says – if we are strong, we take what is ours by right and even more, we will build a superpower empire — Great Ukraine, which is the legal successor of the Scythian and Kiev Russian empires. If we are weak, we place among the conquered peoples dying. As things are in nature! The choice is ours! 

So, Social Nationalism raises to shield all old Ukrainian Aryan values forgotten in modern society. Only their recovery and implementation by a group of fanatical fighters can we lead to the final victory of European civilization in the world struggle. 

This stand is right, and can not be otherwise!

Glory to Ukraine! 

Andrei Beletsky

Screen Shot 2015-01-31 at 2.26.11 PM


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.



Ukraine’s Government Is Losing Its War. Here Is Why:

By Eric Zuesse
January 29, 2015
Washington’s Blog


Ukrainian Army troops receive munitions at a field on the outskirts of Izyum, eastern Ukraine, where troops have been deployed against pro-Russian activists who are gradually gnawing away at areas, mostly near the border with Russia, where there is a large amount of sympathy for Moscow.Picture: AP

On January 27th, Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense headlined “Militants Continue to Suffer Losses,” and reported that four helicopters, and other weapons of the “militants,” were destroyed in battle, but no evidence was given to support the assertion.

Just two days prior, the (also pro-Government) Kiev Post had, in fact, bannered “Ukraine Hides Devastating Losses as Russia-Backed Fighters Surge Forward,” and reported “Ukraine’s worst-kept secret — that the Ukrainian army is drastically understating its casualties.” After detailing, there, what seems to be outrageous unconcern by the Government, for the welfare of troops it’s sending into battle (even by jamming battlefield-injured soldiers into regular civilian hospitals, which aren’t equipped to handle their injuries), this report ends with a doctor saying, “It’s bad everywhere. Yes, the soldiers are still standing at their positions ready to fight. But we don’t see any help coming for them.”

The Ukrainian news agency RIAN headlined on January 26th, “Mobilization in Dnipropetrovsk Almost Drowned,” and reported, “In Dnipropetrovsk region [which is run by the U.S. White House’s friend, the Ukrainian-Swiss-Israeli billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky, whose longstanding personal mercenary army has, alone, more than 5,000 fighters], thousands of men are hiding from the draft. Enforcement officers recognize that accomplishing their task will be very difficult.” More than 2,000 people there who were drafted “did not show up, they evaporated.”

Consequently, the Government is dragooning-in, or “ambushing” (as the article says), virtually anyone who seeks help from the Government, “mobilizing the unemployed” and other “desperate” people. “Military enlistment offices complain” that some draftees are too sick to be able to fight at all.

Also on January 26th, the Fort Russ blog bannered, “Azov Commander Freaks Out, Calls the War ‘Lost’. Blames Everybody,” and reported that, “Ukrainian politicians and generals ‘already lost the war,’ and ‘the West did not help.’ That’s the core of the statement by Azov punitive [meaning: to ‘punish’ the residents in the anti-Government region, for their not supporting the Government] battalion commander’s, and currently also Rada [Parliament] Deputy’s, Andrey Biletsky, in his ‘Address to the Nation.’” According to Biletsky, after the fictitious “thousands of supposedly killed enemies and burned out tanks, the wake-up can be very painful,” because of disappointment felt from the Government’s lies.

RIAN news headlined on January 27th, “The Situation at the Front and Riots Against the Mobilization,” and Andrew Vajra, of the news-site “Alternative,” quoted Biletsky there, as saying, “We were not prepared for the current confrontation.”

Whereas Ukrainian conscript soldiers are not eager to risk their lives in order to impose the current Ukrainian Government (which had resulted from Obama’s coup in Ukraine in February 2014), upon the residents in Ukraine’s Donbass region, which had voted 90% for the man whom Obama overthrew, the residents who still survive there are very eager not to allow this new regime to kill them; and, so, the motivation on the part of the people whom Obama’s forces are trying to kill, is vastly higher than is the motivation on the part of conscript troops, from the rest of Ukraine, to kill them. The only troops who are that eager to kill them are supporters of Ukraine’s two nazi (or racist-fascist) parties, the “Freedom” (renamed by the CIA from their former “Social Nationalist”) and the Right Sector, Parties. Those parties have always gotten only a small percentage of the popular vote in Ukraine, though Obama’s people have placed them into power. Once in power, they passed laws to lock-in that power.

The Ukrainian Government’s problem is that there just aren’t enough nazis, and there’s also not enough money, to do the amounts of killing that need to be done in order to enable Obama’s Ukrainian regime to retain the land in Donbass while eliminating the people there. The 90% of those people who had voted for the man (Viktor Yanukovych) whom Obama overthrew are far more numerous, and far more motivated, than are the vast majority of Ukraine’s soldiers.

America’s and Ukraine’s oligarchs cannot come up with the money to finish the job, but Obama’s big financial backer George Soros is now globetrotting in order to convince taxpayers throughout the West to provide the money to finish it, and the amount he’s coming up with as being necessary for the job is between twenty and fifty billion dollars. His entreaties appear to be falling upon deaf ears.

And that’s the real reason why Obama’s war in Ukraine is failing: there’s just not enough blood-lust for the task, either in Ukraine, or in “the West.”

There aren’t enough nazis, in either area. Obama had over-reached, when he overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014. Either he’ll have to yield-up the land in Donbass, or else he’ll have to yield-up the anti-Russian Government that he has imposed upon Ukraine. It’s one or the other, and he’ll have to choose which.

Either outcome will be embarrassing for him. But perhaps it won’t be quite as embarrassing for him as was his predecessor’s embarrassment regarding the Iraq War. (Of course, Republicans would be in their glory then, by saying “Obama lost Ukraine,” even though it was actually Obama who had seized Ukraine, to begin with — and Republicans would never criticize a President for doing a thing like that: it’s the sort of thing that Republicans are expected to do.)

On the other hand, it might turn out to be even more embarrassing than that for Obama, if he should happen to decide to go all the way here, and to push on for a nuclear war against Russia.

As regards the Ukrainian Government itself, they were placed into power by Obama’s action of coup, followed by this Ukrainian Government’s actions removing the Donbass residents from their electorate; and, so, the current members of the Rada, and of the Ukrainian Administration, cannot blame Obama; they are instead blaming Vladimir Putin and Russia — the country that Obama (like George Soros and so many other American aristocrats) hates, and that not merely the people whom Obama placed into power in Ukraine hate. Thus, on Wednesday, January 28th, RIAN news headlined, “Full Text of the Appeal for Recognition of Russia as Aggressor,” and they reported:

“The Verkhovna Rada made ​​public the full text of Resolution number 1854 on appeal to the United Nations, the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, GUAM Parliamentary Assembly, and the national parliaments of the countries in the world, to recognize the Russian Federation as the aggressor state.”

Furthermore, German Economic News reported that this action by the Rada had been passed by “271 of 289 deputies present,” and that it could “have international legal consequences.” GEN’s report also said that Ukraine’s leaders claim they now “urgently need new loans” from the EU, because, otherwise, Ukraine’s existing loans will go into default. The reader-comments to that news-report at GEN’s website seem to be negative on that request, and to be far more inclined to view Ukraine’s Government as nazi than as Ukraine’s being the victim of Russia or any other country, and least of all as being a victim of the EU’s own taxpayers, who have already given plenty to the Ukrainian Government, and who would become the people bearing the burden of those new ‘loans,’ which would be going to the very back of Ukraine’s long line of creditors, if Ukraine goes bankrupt, as is widely expected soon to happen. In other words: there would seem to be little public support in Germany, for giving Ukraine yet more money. If the EU’s leaders do decide to comply with Ukraine’s urgent request, then the EU will have even less public support in Germany than it currently does. The EU is therefore likely to turn down the request, so as not to place even further into jeopardy the EU’s own continued existence.

And, obviously, unless Ukraine gets the further ‘loans’ to prosecute its war against the residents in Donbass, Ukraine won’t even possibly be able to win this war.

So, that’s the Ukrainian Government’s predicament, regarding this war.


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.

PBS-TV’s Frontline Misrepresents Russia’s Vladimir Putin

By Eric Zuesse
January 18, 2015
Washington’s Blog


On January 13th, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) telecast the FRONTLINE documentary, “Putin’s Way,” which purported to be a biography of Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin.

The press release about this film states: “Drawing on firsthand accounts from exiled Russian business tycoons, writers and politicians, as well as the exhaustive research of scholar and best-selling Putin’s Kleptocracy author Karen Dawisha, the film examines troubling episodes in Putin’s past, from alleged money-laundering activities and ties to organized crime, to a secret personal fortune said to be in the billions. … These accounts portray a Russian leader who began by professing hope and democracy but now is stoking nationalism, conflict and authoritarianism.”

This documentary opens by describing the corruption that pervaded post-Soviet Russia and the Presidential Administration of Putin’s sponsor Boris Yeltsin during the transitional period of ending communism and starting capitalism, which was the period of privatization of the former Soviet Government’s assets. This film ignores the role that the U.S. and especially the then-World-Bank President Lawrence Summers and his protege Andrei Shleifer and other members of Harvard’s Economics Department played in planning and largely overseeing that entire process. Yeltsin brought that team in, to plan and oversee the process, because he figured that Harvard would know how to set up capitalism. On 10 February 2006, the Harvard Crimson headlined about the result, “‘Tawdry Shleifer Affair’ Stokes Faculty Anger Toward Summers,” and noted that the affair was such an embarrassment to the University that, “Shleifer, the Jones professor of economics, was found liable by a federal court in 2004 for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government while leading a Harvard economic reform program in Russia as it transitioned to capitalism in the 1990s. Shleifer settled the case for $2 million.” An extensive article by David McClintick in Institutional Investor magazine described the sleazy details of this affair, under the banner of “How Harvard Lost Russia.” However, this FRONTLINE documentary ignores all of that history, and pretends that Yeltsin established Russia’s crony-capitalism with no help or guidance from the U.S., the World Bank, and Harvard’s economists. Putin is instead portrayed as having been, and as now being, just a continuation of Soviet-era corruption, not at all as functioning in what was, to a significant extent, actually a U.S.-headed transition into capitalism.

Then, the film presents Putin as having first come to power in Russia on account of his attacking Chechnya after several apartment buildings in Moscow and other Russian cities were bombed and Chechens were blamed for the bombings. This film fails to mention that Chechnya was a part of Russia, rather than a foreign country, and that, as wikipedia summarizes the origin of the Chechen war:

With the impending dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, an independence movement, initially known as the Chechen National Congress, was formed and led by ex-Soviet Air Force general and new Chechen President Dzhokhar Dudayev that rallied for the recognition of Chechnya as a separate nation. This movement was ultimately opposed by Boris Yeltsin’s Russian Federation, which firstly argued that Chechnya had not been an independent entity within the Soviet Union—as the Baltic, Central Asian, and other Caucasian States had—but was part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and hence did not have a right under the Soviet constitution to secede; secondly, that other republics of Russia, such as Tatarstan, would consider seceding from the Russian Federation if Chechnya were granted that right; and thirdly, that Chechnya was a major hub in the oil infrastructure of the Federation and hence its secession would hurt the country’s economy and energy access.”

The documentary mentions none of that, but, instead:

NARRATOR: And Putin’s invasion would be brutal.

CHECHEN CHILD: [subtitles] It’s my grandpa lying there!

NARRATOR: The man who waged it [Putin] was a new national hero.

It also notes that both Yeltsin and Putin refused to allow those bombings to be officially investigated, and that a possibility exists that the Russian Government itself had bombed the apartment buildings and falsely blamed it on Chechen separatists in order to enable Putin to win a popular election so as to succeed Yeltsin.

If that possibility was the actual explanation of the apartment-building bombings, then it was what’s called a “false flag” incident (one set up so as to be falsely blamed on the opposite side), such as the United States Government has often used. Two recent examples of this tactic were the coup that overthrew Ukraine’s Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 (which was based on sniper-fire that the U.S. blamed on Yanukovych’s Government but which really came from U.S. paid mercenaries who were dressed to appear to be Yanukovych’s people), and also the subsequent downing of the Malaysian MH17 airliner by the Ukrainian Government on 17 July 2014 (which was based on firing that the U.S. and its new Government in Ukraine claimed came from pro-Russian separatists but which actually came from a Ukrainian Government attack-plane). The first of those incidents was done by the Obama Administration in order to enable Ukraine to be used as a base for NATO nuclear missiles aimed against Russia; and the second of them was done in order to get the EU to hike its economic sanctions against Russia.

Whereas it’s likely that the 1999 Moscow apartment-building bombings were a false-flag operation, it’s practically certain that the two recent events in Ukraine were false-flag events — but they were perpetrated by our side, not by Russia, and so this documentary ignores these Ukrainian incidents and pretends that whereas Putin uses false-flag tactics, Obama and the U.S. do not.

Here is the way that wikipedia describes the apartment-building bombings (and the PBS documentary ignores all of this):

The Invasion of Dagestan was the trigger for the Second Chechen War. In August and September 1999, Shamil Basayev (in association with the Saudi-born Ibn al-Khattab, Commander of the Mujahedeen) led two armies of up to 2,000 Chechen, Dagestani, Arab and international mujahideen and Wahhabist militants from Chechnya into the neighboring Republic of Dagestan. This war saw the first (unconfirmed) use of aerial-delivered fuel air explosives (FAE) in mountainous areas, notably in the village of Tando.[39] By mid-September 1999, the militants were routed from the villages and pushed back into Chechnya. At least several hundred militants were killed in the fighting; the Federal side reported 279 servicemen killed and approximately 900 wounded.[18] …

Before the wake of the Dagestani invasion had settled, a series of bombings took place in Russia (in Moscow and in Volgodonsk) and in the Dagestani town of Buynaksk. On 4 September 1999, 62 people died in an apartment building housing members of families of Russian soldiers. Over the next two weeks, the bombs targeted three other apartment buildings and a mall; in total nearly 300 people were killed. Khattab initially claimed responsibility for the bombings, but later denied responsibility. This was followed by an anonymous caller, who said he belonged to a group called the Liberation Army of Dagestan.[40] There were no other calls or acts by the Liberation Army of Dagestan.

The fact that the Chechen separatist movement was supported by the Saudis and entailed “Wahhabist militants from Chechnya” wasn’t even mentioned in the PBS documentary, though it certainly is relevant to deciding whether Putin waged the second Chechen War solely in order to win election to the Presidency and was doing something he shouldn’t have been doing there.

The PBS documentary notes:

DAVID SATTER, Author, Darkness at Dawn: Well, the apartment buildings saved the Yeltsin system. They saved the corrupt division of property that took place after the fall of the Soviet Union. They cost thousands of innocent lives, both Russian and Chechnyan, by starting a new war. They brought to power someone from the security services — and that’s Putin — who, of course, had no interest in democracy.

NARRATOR: His first act as president was to grant his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, immunity from prosecution. But Putin’s administration would quickly ensure his own safety, too. Case number 144-128, that corruption investigation in St. Petersburg, quietly went away.

Nothing is said about U.S. President Barack Obama’s having done the same thing with respect to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who had lied his country into invading Iraq in 2003, and also about Obama’s having protected from criminal prosecution the megabank chiefs who grew rich from mortgage-backed-securites frauds that brought down America’s economy in 2008, and whose Administration covered up much else besides. The pretense is instead put forth that Putin is evil in ways that today’s American Presidents are not.

Then, Russia’s richest man, whom Putin had placed in prison for tax-evasion, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, is interviewed and says that all he was really trying to do was to fight against corruption and against dictatorship, and for capitalism and democracy.

Then, the liberal political leaders Tony Blair from UK and Gerhard Schroeder from Germany are described as having been corrupt for having supported Putin’s policies.

EDWARD LUCAS: Putin was trained in the KGB to deceive foreigners. He has a very sharp eye for human weakness. He’s good at persuading people and intimidating them, and he’s been doing this with Western leaders, sometimes with charm, sometimes with threats. But boy, does he do it.

Then, others are interviewed who similarly describe Putin as being corrupt in ways that America isn’t, such as:

KAREN DAWISHA, Author, Putin’s Kleptocracy: So the system is a system of mutual support and tribute. It’s a pay-to-play system. If you are on a list of possible people who might be approached to be a member of the Duma, for example, you have to pay for your seat. Once you’re in there, then you can turn around and charge businessmen to have line items in the budget. Same thing all across all sectors.

Then, Putin is described as being like an unpopular Middle Eastern tyrant.

NARRATOR: The Arab spring surged out of Tunisia into Tahrir Square and on to Tripoli. For Putin, these mass demonstrations overthrowing powerful dictators must have been worrying.

STANISLAV BELKOVSKY: It was the first stage of his coming to understanding that he could never quit the post because the destiny of Gadhafi could be waiting for him.

NARRATOR: In 2011, when Vladimir Putin announced he would run again for Russia’s presidency, the response was mass demonstrations in Moscow’s streets, protests which had to be put down by police.

Actually, however, Putin’s entire time in public office since becoming President in 2000 has ranged between 60%-85% approval-ratings, though propagandists in and for America have constantly been saying such things as “There is no doubt that Putin’s popularity is falling.” (His approval-rating currently is above 80%.)

This documentary assumes, unquestioningly, the U.S.-propaganda line, that Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, and that the economic sanctions against Russia are punishment for that, and also punishment for Russia’s supposed guilt in the shooting down of the MH17 airliner.

NARRATOR: Putin has invaded Crimea and redrawn the map of Ukraine, claiming he is protecting ethnic Russians. According to his spokesman, it is a justifiable response to Western encroachment on territories the Soviet Union once held. …

The United States was calling for strong sanctions against Russia. But in the capitals of Europe, there was reluctance.

EDWARD LUCAS: We keep on trying to bring Mr. Putin in. We invite him to our summit meetings. We try and treat Russia as a normal country. And we think we’re trying to calm things down, but in fact, what we’re doing is we’re stoking things. We’re giving Mr. Putin the impression that we’re not to be taken seriously, and he continues to push us harder and harder and harder, and that’s extremely dangerous.

NARRATOR: But then in July 2014, one violent act would transform the political landscape. Malaysian passenger plane MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine by what was widely believed to have been a Russian-supplied weapon. Two hundred and ninety-eight people were killed. Suddenly, the West was galvanized.

TONY ABBOTT, Prime Minister of Australia: I demand that Russia fully cooperate with the criminal investigation into the downing of MH17.

STEPHEN HARPER, Prime Minister of Canada: It’s necessary to make it clear it will not be business as usual.

Pres. BARACK OBAMA: We’re opposing Russia aggression against Ukraine, which is a threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shootdown of MH17.

However, actually, Russia didn’t “invade” Crimea, but instead there was a coup on 22 February 2014, which installed a new Ukrainian Government, which wanted to oust from Crimea Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, which had been stationed there since 1783, and Crimeans immediately demonstrated against that coup-Government, and they held a referendum on rejoining Russia, of which Crimea had been a part until 1954. 96% voted to rejoin Russia. Gallup polls taken in Crimea both before and after that referendum showed similar majorities wanting to rejoin Russia. What was illegal wasn’t Crimea rejoining Russia; it was instead the coup that precipitated Crimea’s rejoining Russia. But this documentary doesn’t even mention that coup, at all, nor the ethnic cleansing that has followed it. Russia’s accepting Crimea back into Russia was legal, and it was also essential for Russian national security. It was the right thing to do. The coup, however, and the Obama-demanded ethnic cleansing of Ukraine’s Donbass region — the area that had voted 90% for the Ukrainian President whom Obama overthrew — were violent U.S.-backed actions to impose upon all of Ukraine a far-right, rabidly anti-Russian, Government, which authentically constitutes a national security threat against Russia.



Ukraine’s Creditors Grab for the Biggest Pieces of Its Carcass

By Eric Zuesse
January 11, 2015
Washington’s Blog


The lifelong Russia-enemy George Soros, and the Russian Government itself, are now openly fighting over which parts of the Ukrainian Government they’ll be getting in the bankruptcy proceeding that’s already unofficially starting.

Here’s the necessary background, so that the battle now occurring on the part of Ukraine’s creditors can be truthfully and honestly understood:

In December 2013 — just before the overthrow of the Russia-friendly Ukrainian Government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, by Soros’s American President and major political-campaign investment, Barack Obama — Russia lent Ukraine $3 billion with a contract saying that if Ukraine’s debt would rise above 60% of Ukraine’s GDP, then Russia would be able to demand immediate repayment, and Ukraine agreed to the contract’s condition that Ukraine wouldn’t pay a cent to any other creditor before the entire due-balance on this $3 billion loan is returned to Russia.

Then, on 4 February 2014, Victoria Nuland of Obama’s State Department selected Ukrainian banker Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the person to take control over Ukraine as soon as Obama’s Ukrainian coup would occur, which turned out to be 18 days later, on February 22nd.

Soros’s and Obama’s plan was to privatize as much of the Ukrainian Government as possible in a fire-sale of its assets, such as the valuable gas-fields in the Yuzivska region in Ukraine’s southeast (where the civil war now is), so that Soros and the other investors would be able to get their money back, with interest. Furthermore, inasmuch as only Soros and other insiders would be in on this fire-sale, those same people would also be the bidders; and thus Ukraine’s assets would be sold to them at prices far lower than their actual worth as economic investments for the future. This would turn their prior Ukrainian bonds into super-discounted equity or stock in what now are Ukrainian Government-owned gas-fields, electrical power companies, factories, etc. Furthermore, Western agribusiness giants are now coming into Western Ukraine to buy up Ukrainian farmland, which is among the world’s most-fertile.

The basic privatization-scheme that’s being used here had originally been drawn up by the Harvard economist, and the then-World-Bank chief, Lawrence Summers, and by Harvard’s Economics Department, in the 1990s, as being the way for American insider investors and the U.S.S.R.’s Communist Party insiders, to buy the U.S.S.R.’s assets dirt-cheap, and thereby profit from the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. Those economists oversaw the sell-offs of industrial and other assets throughout many of the 15 nations comprising the Soviet Union, one of which is Ukraine, where the fire-sales are now occurring.

With this as the background, the world’s great newspaper, German Economic News, headlines, on January 10th (as translated by the present writer into English), “Putin v. Soros: Russia Grabs for EU-Billions to Ukraine,” and reports that:

“Just a few days after Angela Merkel cleared the way for a 1.8 billion euro loan from the EU’s tax-money for [Ukrainian Premier] Arseny ‘Yaz’ Yatsenyuk, Russia launched its interest in this money: Moscow is considering to mature a loan it had made to Kiev. Russia makes this move especially against the speculator George Soros.

Ukraine’s ‘Yaz’ Yatsenyuk met with Chancellor Merkel, at the Chancellor’s Office, on Thursday [Jan. 8]. No sooner was the Premier assured by the EU of receiving 1.8 billion euros, than Russia intervenes for the money — Moscow may trigger the state bankruptcy of Ukraine.

Russia could use the EU payments to Ukraine to mature a loan that is due at the end of January, and Kiev cannot use its own resources: Moscow could demand early repayment of a three-billion-dollar loan to Ukraine. Ukraine did not meet a number of conditions [of the loan-agreement], reported the Russian news agency RIA Novosti on Saturday [the 10th], citing government sources. Under these circumstances, Russia was forced to insist on the earlier payment.”

Soros has been lobbying very intensively, after the coup (see all about it by clicking on that link), to persuade the EU, IMF and U.S., to donate enough of Western taxpayers’ money, so as to enable Ukraine to buy enough weapons to win its war against the rebelling portion of Ukraine — the region which had voted 90% for the overthrown former President, Viktor Yanukovych — the region in Ukraine that’s often called “Donbass,” which is in Ukraine’s far east, and which has declared its independence, and which includes much of the Yuzivska gas-field. That region has consistently rejected the Obama-coup-imposed Government; and consequently its gas cannot be used to repay Ukraine’s debts unless Ukraine regains control over that land, where now, almost certainly, even more than 90% of the people reject that Government. (Click here in order to see the transcript of the EU officials’ phone-conversation in which their Foreign-Affairs Minister Catherine Ashton was informed by her own investigator, on 25 February 2014, that Yanukovych had been overthrown in a violent coup, rather than himself perpetrated the bloodshed, and that Ukraine’s current President, Petro Poroshenko, himself acknowledged to the EU’s investigator at the time, that it was a coup — which Ashton hadn’t known of until that moment.) This is the reason why the IMF informed the coup Government, on 1 May 2014, that unless it could regain control over the rebels’ land, which means eliminate its residents (since they would never accept a Government that is set upon exterminating them), the IMF would stop lending (actually donating, since these ‘loans’ will come at the end of the long line in the bankruptcy proceeding that’s now inevitable) Ukraine more of its Western taxpayers’ money. Without those gas-fields and other assets, even the existing IMF loans to Ukraine wouldn’t likely ever be able to be paid back. New IMF loans surely won’t be.

On 6 January 2015, an aide to Poroshenko announced that, as the news-headline on this story the following day phrased it, “Ukraine Says $450 Million Was Stolen from Its Military in 2014.” This report also noted that, “This amount happens to be precisely the same maximum amount of money that the U.S. Government, in legislation that was supported by more than 98% of U.S. Senators and Representatives and that was signed into law by U.S. President Barack Obama on December 18th, will donate to Ukraine’s military for this year, 2015.” Both Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly support Obama’s ethnic-cleansing program to get rid of the people in that region of Ukraine and thus endorsed the $450 million donation by U.S. taxpayers. However, if the people we’re hiring to do that job are stealing as much money as we’re donating to them, then people like Soros could end up losing money on their bond-investments. This is the reason why Soros is pressing the European Union to donate lots more of their taxpayers’ money to this war. In the 5 February issue of the New York Review of Books, he says, “all the consequences of helping Ukraine would be positive. By enabling Ukraine to defend itself, Europe would be indirectly also defending itself.” He doesn’t mention that Ukraine’s Government resulted from a coup instead of from the anti-corruption demonstrators in the Maidan, and he portrays Russia’s President Vladimir Putin as being the aggressor for accepting Crimea back into Russia (where it had been during 1783-1954), and not America’s President Barack Obama as being the aggressor for perpetrating the coup and trying to oust Russia’s Black Sea Fleet from Crimea. Soros says:

“Putin’s ambition to recreate a Russian empire has unintentionally helped bring into being a new Ukraine that is opposed to Russia and seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine with its endemic corruption and ineffective government. The new Ukraine is led by the cream of civil society: young people, many of whom studied abroad and refused to join either government or business on their return because they found both of them repugnant. Many of them found their place in academic institutions, think tanks, and nongovernmental organizations. A widespread volunteer movement, of unprecedented scope and power unseen in other countries, has helped Ukraine to stand strong against Russian aggression.”

Here is the type of people that Obama’s team actually placed into control over the actually coup-Government. It’s the opposite of “the cream of civil society.” In fact, the very same person who is described there led the organization, called Right Sector, which perpetrated the massacre of the people inside the Trade Unions Building in Odessa on May 2nd, the day after the IMF had said that if the opponents to the new regime weren’t eliminated, IMF loans to Ukraine would stop. And the main financier paying those Right Sector operatives to do that was this man, who recently hired two young people who are closely associated with the Obama White House.

The Russian novelist Zakhar Prilepin was quoted on 3 January 2015 in an interview by RIA Novosti Ukraine, after having travelled through Donbass and spoken with many people there, in order to understand why the separation from Ukraine had occurred. He said:

“I thoroughly questioned local guys what led them to battle, I think Ukraine should know the answers. One of the main points of reference was not even Maidan [the demonstrations, and the extreme violence there that produced the coup in February], which many looked upon with distaste, but suffered, and namely it [the start of the civil war] was the events in Odessa [the May 2nd massacre in Odessa] — and the reaction of thousands of Ukrainian bloggers on this obvious atrocity.”

In other words: Until the massacre in Odessa, residents in Donbass were willing to have some kind of federation arrangement with the post-coup Government; but, after the massacre, they knew that this new Government wanted them dead. That massacre was thus the real start of Ukraine’s civil war.

Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation (or Fund) was one of the three top financial backers of Ukraine’s Hromadske TV, which interviewed (and never criticized) a guest who said:

“Donbass, in general, is not simply a region in a very depressed condition, it has got a whole number of problems, the biggest of which is that it is severely overpopulated with people nobody has any use for. Trust me I know perfectly well what I am saying. If we take, for example, just the Donetsk oblast, there are approximately 4 million inhabitants, at least 1.5 million of which are superfluous. That’s what I mean: we don’t need to [try to] ‘understand’ Donbass, we need to understand Ukrainian national interests. Donbass must be exploited as a resource, which it is. I don’t claim to have a quick solution recipe, but the most important thing that must be done — no matter how cruel it may sound — is that there is a certain category of people that must be exterminated.”

The other main funders of Hromadske TV are the U.S. Government and the Netherlands Government.

Soros’s NYRB article closes with a five-point analysis of where the tens of billions of dollars that will be required in order to exterminate those people should come from. He lists: Balance of Payments Assistance, European Financial Stability Mechanism, Macro-Financial Assistance Facility, European Union, IMF, Extended Fund Facility, European Investment Bank, World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Paris Club.

He says that if they don’t come up with the funds: “Europe will be left on its own to defend itself against Russian aggression, and Europe will have abandoned the values and principles on which the European Union was founded. That would be an irreparable loss.”

On 1 January 2015, he headlined a Project Syndicate oped at Live Mint and other sites, “Europe at War: Supporting the New Ukraine in 2015 and Beyond Is the Most Cost-Effective Investment the EU Could Make,” and he said:

By invading Ukraine in 2014, President Vladimir Putin’s Russia has posed a fundamental challenge to the values and principles on which the European Union (EU) was founded. …

Putin’s regime is based on rule by force, manifested in repression at home and aggression abroad. …

Russia annexed Crimea and established separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. …

The West, sadly, has provided embattled Ukraine with only a façade of support. …

All available resources should be put to work in the war effort, even if that requires running up budget deficits. Europe is fortunate that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has behaved as a true European with regard to the threat posed by Russia. …

Helping Ukraine to defend itself against Russian aggression would have a stimulative effect on Ukraine and Europe. The EU’s members are at war—and they need to start acting like it. …

Ukraine needs an immediate cash injection of, say, $20 billion, with a promise of more when needed. …

The “new Ukraine” is resolutely pro-European. …

Supporting the new Ukraine in 2015 and beyond is the most cost-effective investment the EU could make.

His call here was a more detailed presentation of the argument that the Financial Times had made earlier, on 30 November 2014, under the headline, “The Economic Collapse of Ukraine Must Be Halted: The IMF and Western donors need to inject $15bn of emergency funding.” Nobody mentions that those “Western donors” are taxpayers, and that the Ukrainian public aren’t being bailed out but that the Western aristocracy is.

However, Arseniy Yatsenyuk himself said essentially this very thing, on 9 January 2015, under a Ukrainian site’s headline (translated here) “IMF money will be used only for the payment of foreign debts – Yatseniuk,” which presented this quotation from him:

“I would also like to note that the money that we get in the framework of international financial assistance, does not go to finance the state budget deficit, it does not go to the payment of pensions, does not go to the payment of wages. All of this is happening in the first place, to perform our external obligations.”

Those “external obligations” were first stated, on 1 May 2014, by the IMF, when it demanded, basically, that the people in Donbass be exterminated. Western aristocrats want the land that’s there, not the people who live on it. And Western taxpayers are supposed to foot the bill in order to get rid of the residents in Donbass.

This is the deal that’s being proposed — and executed — in Western ‘democracies.’


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.

Oliver Stone: Ukrainians are suffering from US ‘ideological crusade’ against Russia

January 04, 2015


American film director Oliver Stone (RIA Novosti/Grigoriy Sisoev)

American film director Oliver Stone (RIA Novosti/Grigoriy Sisoev)


In response to those who took exception with his claims that the Ukrainian crisis involved “outside agitators,” Oliver Stone took to social media to advance his argument, saying that Ukrainians are the victims of a US strategy akin to Cold War 2.0.

This week, Stone stirred a political firestorm with his views on what he believed sparked the Ukrainian crisis, following a private interview with Viktor Yanukovich, the former Ukrainian president who was ousted in the February 2014 coup.

“It seems clear that the so-called ‘shooters’ who killed 14 policemen, wounded some 85 and killed 45 protesting civilians, were outside, third-party agitators,” Stone said, following his four-hour conversation with Yanukovich in Moscow. “Many witnesses, including Yanukovich and police officials, believe these foreign elements were introduced by pro-Western factions – with CIA fingerprints on it.”

According to the American-born filmmaker and writer, Ukraine is just the latest country in a long list to fall prey to “America’s soft power technique called ‘Regime Change 101.’”

Stone’s comments reverberated like an earthquake on both sides of the Ukrainian divide, prompting him to elaborate on his original statement. Stone’s follow-up post began with him explaining that he has no particular sympathy for Yanukovich.

“For those of you angry with my analysis of Ukraine yesterday, please try to understand the bigger picture I’m offering,” he wrote on his Facebook page. “I have no brief for Viktor Yanukovich, he may well be the most corrupt president Ukraine’s ever had. Ukraine has a dramatic history of corruption. That is not my point.”

However, he went on to argue that there is “ample evidence of pro-Western, third-party interference” in Ukraine, specifically mentioning Victoria Nuland and John McCain, two high-ranking American officials who appeared on the streets of central Kiev at the height of the Maidan showdown between police and protesters.

He also mentioned specific US government organizations, such as USAID, which has been operating in Ukraine since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the National Endowment for Democracy, which he remarked“apparently organize very well on Facebook and Twitter,”suggesting a possible method of organizing the protesters for an anti-government rally.

Supporters of European integration of Ukraine clash with the police in the center of Kiev January 25, 2014 (RIA Novosti)

Supporters of European integration of Ukraine clash with the police in the center of Kiev January 25, 2014 (RIA Novosti)

READ MORE: ‘CIA fingerprints’ all over Kiev massacre – Oliver Stone

Stone asked the question why so many Ukrainian policemen were killed and wounded during the occasionally violent rallies, “Yet no one has investigated this in the new government?”

Indeed, there has been much speculation that the so-called Maidan snipers were working in the pay of those who were trying to orchestrate the protests, and it was their aim to shoot members from both sides to trigger deeper social unrest.

To emphasize his point that the US has been playing games in Ukraine for a long time, Stone made a historical reference to 1949, when Defense Secretary James Forrestal, together with the cooperation of the CIA, created a guerrilla force codenamed ‘Nightingale’ that was comprised of ultra-nationalist Ukrainians.

For five years, according to Stone, the CIA was parachuting Ukrainian infiltrators into the country.

Stone implored his audience to see the “big picture,” which is that the United States “has never given up on using Ukraine as a launching pad to the underbelly of the Soviet Union, now a reduced Russia.”

“This Cold War 2.0 policy continues in a most deadly fashion, and whether they know it or not, the Ukrainian civilian population in the middle has suffered greatly from this ideological crusade,” Stone said.