US/NATO/EU and the desperate subversion of Ukraine

[John Dolva]

In the face of a media that pointedly ignore relevant issues some level headed thinking does appear:

http://www.jeremycorbyn.org.uk/

4 Mar

Morning Star: It’s no time to Take Heed of the Tin-Pot Generals

JEREMY CORBYN says the West is in no place to take the moral high ground over Ukraine’s crisis

In Parliament yesterday there were a number of tin-pot generals using the opportunity of the Ukrainian crisis to insist that Britain should rapidly and exponentially increase military expenditure.

But as with all international crises, it’s important to recognise the history lurking behind the drama.

Ukraine’s national borders have ebbed and flowed with the tides of history, from being the original heartland of Russian civilisation, expanding under Moscow’s rule during the tsarist era and becoming part of the Soviet Union after 1917.

The relationship between Ukraine and Moscow was always strained. The famine of the took the lives of millions and left a legacy of bitterness that has not disappeared.

In 1941 the Nazi operation Barbarossa saw the Wehrmacht march through Ukraine. Millions of Ukrainians fought and died heroically to stop the Nazis, but there were also significant pro-Nazi groups. Their descendants could be seen bearing Nazi insignia and spouting racist slogans in Kiev only a week ago.

As for the Crimea where Russia is now moving in, it has historically been separate from Ukraine. It was a theatre of war between Western Europe and Russia during the 1850s, a fact which should be a warning to us today. Then, as now, empires fought for space and influence. Its Tartar population was treated disgracefully by Stalin, and wholesale deportation followed the end of World War II.

Eventually many returned to the Crimea and they now make up an eighth of the population. Most of the rest are Russian speakers who came there during the Soviet period.

In 1954 Khrushchev transferred the Crimea to Ukraine, and this was later endorsed after the Soviet Union collapsed when Russia accepted Ukraine’s current borders.

Ukraine declared itself a nuclear-weapons free country. Theoretically it has maintained a policy of avoiding military alliances with either NATO or Russia, but it has been put under enormous pressure to come into the EU and NATO military orbit.

The end of the Cold War was an obvious time for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, founded in the 1970s as an east-west forum, to assert itself and replace the hostile parties of NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The pact was indeed wound up but sadly NATO, since 1990, has been looking to expand.

Ukrainian politics are divided between Ukrainian and Russian-speaking people. All census and electoral maps reflect much the same pattern. It resulted in Viktor Yuschenko being narrowly elected president in 2005, only to be replaced later by Viktor Yanukovych who was also narrowly elected.

Such divisions have been clear in the protests against Yanukovych which began late last year.

We must defend the right of people to demonstrate against their governments, but it was remarkable that the EU leadership in the person of Baroness Catherine Ashton and the US political Establishment in the guise of Senator John McCain both chose to give very strong support to demonstrations in Kiev which were far from representing all Ukrainians. Neither did they make any comments about far-right and racist involvement in the uprising.

Double standards come to the fore in times of crisis and none could be more obvious than those of the Western media over the past week.

Russia has gone way beyond its legal powers to use bases in the Crimea. Sending unidentified forces into another country is clearly a violation of that country’s sovereignty.

Interestingly in his press conference yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin backed away from his previous support for Yanukovych, declaring that the latter was political history.

That may have been because opinion polls in Russia are showing only 15 per cent support for military action. It is to be hoped that combined with the great economic cost and potential consequences of the military course this will result in a reduction of tensions.

Still, the hypocrisy of the West remains unbelievable.

NATO has sought to expand since the end of the cold war. It has increased its military capability and expenditure. It operates way beyond its original 1948 area and its attempt to encircle Russia is one of the big threats of our time.

We should also remember the West’s ongoing use of drone aircraft over Pakistan, with no international authorisation whatsoever; the invasion of Iraq on a trumped-up charge contrary to international law and in the absence of any UN mandate; and of course the continued wholly illegal prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.

The self-satisfied pomposity of Western leaders in lecturing the world about morality and international law has to be challenged.

While some in Parliament yesterday were calling for a beefed-up military to “meet the threat” unfolding in Ukraine there were others who pointed out that unless any government there actually seeks to embrace the linguistic and ethnic diversity of the country it will forever be an unstable place.

We have marched against wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. We should oppose any foreign military intervention in Ukraine, as that would only succeed in that country reliving its traumatic past as a battleground where Russia and Western Europe vie for supremacy.

Ukraine obviously has enormous economic problems as well. It was ominous that in a throwaway line in yesterday’s statement from the Foreign Secretary he revealed that the IMF has already sent officials to the country to explain how its economy must be restructured. Such news will be met with a horse laugh in Greece and other places which have been on the receiving end of mass unemployment, the privatisation of public services and the destruction of welfare systems at the behest of the bankers of the world.

[John Dolva]

There seems to have been a surge in focus on this overnight. The BBC puts it well :

"...as Ukraine's crisis grows, and the far right helps patrol Kiev's streets in "self-defence units," they bear close watching. Very close."

[John Dolva]

My impression today is that there has been a shift in that the west is concerned about having russia opening dialogue with the self imposed government in kiev. Naturally as long as the, grudgingly (by the west) acknowledged, fascist components of this self imposed government of kiev is not satisfactorily dealt with the west will continue to have difficulties. Naturally the people of ukraine are going to have to come to terms with the rigours of proposed foreign economic impositions.

It seems to be deceptively calm on the front. No doubt the west led by the us will come up with further divisive bluster while also it seems more likely now that sections of the western media will continue to expose the true nature of the coup.

_______________________

edit add : http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2450881&Itemid=1

Russia Calls European Formulas for Ukraine Unacceptable

Moscow, Mar 7 (Prensa Latina) The Russian ambassador to the European Union (EU), Vladimir Chizhov, called the language in a document released for the EU Summit regarding the crisis in Ukraine, as "unacceptable and unjust."

Warning that Moscow would not be intimidated by the language and threats of sanctions, the diplomat pointed out that the formulas included in the statements of Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, are inconsistent with the insistence that negotiations and dialogue are the only way to resolve the crisis.

Chizhov stressed that just like at the meeting of EU foreign ministers, the Councilâ�Ös document advises the freezing of visas and the suspension of negotiations on a new accord regarding this issue as well as the preparations for the G-8 Summit in Sochi.

The diplomat recalled that in regard to the visas and negotiations for an exemption between Russia and the EU, talks have been at a standstill for quite some time.

He indicated that the only new element in the European position was the attempt to divide the agreement on association with Ukraine, the deferment of which provoked the disturbances that ended with the forced toppling of Ukraineâ�Ös elected president, Viktor Yanukovich.

The ambassador explained that now, in order for the EU to show its support for the current illegitimate authorities in Ukraine, it had decided to sign the political part of the document with them.

"I should like to point out that the total volume of the text is more than a thousand pages. The substantive section, dealing with the economy, should wait until after elections that would allow for the formation of a more legitimate Government, or at least, one that is more responsible," concluded Chizhov.

Russia insists that President Yanukovich, toppled by a violation of the agreement drafted between him, opposition leaders, and representatives from German, France and Poland on February 21, is the sole legitimate authority in Ukraine.

The agreement provided for troop withdrawal as a way to de-escalate the conflict, the formation of a national coalition government, and constitutional reform, as well as elections to be held in September, instead of by year end.

When Yanukovich complied with the first part, withdrawing troops, extremists swept in and overtook the Parliament and presidential offices, revoking his mandate, restoring the 2004 Constitution from the "Orange Revolution" and beginning a campaign to settle scores.

Despite this illegal behavior, the U.S. and its European allies recognized the new rulers in Kiev as legitimate and even went so far as to invite the new designated Prime Minister, Arseny Yatseniuk, to the EU Summit in Brussels.

sus/sa/tjg/jpm Modificado el ( viernes, 07 de marzo de 2014 ) Edited March 8, 2014 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Russia Calls on Western Countries to Frank Dialogue

Moscow, Mar 8 (Prensa Latina) Foreign Miinister Sergei Lavrov said today that the dialogue with the West must be reciprocal, frank and on equal footing, without protecting extremists and untranationalists who seized power in Ukraine.

[John Dolva]

Soon the people of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea will have the choice of whether they ally themselves with the self imposed interim 'government' of Ukraine or not. The discombobulated responses by the US and its allied governmental persons, as typified by the head twonk of the US, John Kerry, goes a long way towards ensuring that they will choose not to.

They are also aided in their choice by a Ukranian presidential candidate who promises that those who 'don't understand' him will be strung up and abused. Naturally it's one of the fascists that the F, UK, US alliance supports who has proclaimed this (see RT).

There are increasing reports of fascists from other european countries converging on Ukraine (apparently the swedish Sapo is not particularly concerned about the swedish nazis who are going there (Sapo members have been implicated in the assassination of Palme). ((wrong name) Reinfeldt thinks the nazis who knifed 'Reclaim the Night' (Traditional International Womens Day event hroughout the world) demonstrators in Malmo should not not do it because it's not good for the image of Sweden. Hopefully they'll beahve and not do it again.)

Meanwhile incursions by people from outside the A.R.C. are successfully dealt with on the border by A.R.C. units.

Hopefully once the people there have chosen the focus can shift back to the chaos in Ukraine, where it should be.

edit : couple of mistakes.

Edited March 11, 2014 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

Russia sinks ships and blocks exit from port

The Russian Black Sea Fleet sank a mothballed cruiser in the inlet to Crimea's Donuzlav Lake on March 5, effectively blocking access to the sea from Ukraine's primary naval installation on the peninsula. Seven of the Ukrainian navy's estimated 25 ships are reportedly trapped in the port of Novoozerne. This action serves several purposes for the Russian forces operating in Crimea, but most important, blocking the channel further limits Ukraine's already weak naval capabilities.

Analysis

Around midnight on March 5, the Russian navy used tugboats to maneuver the 9,000-ton hulk of the anti-submarine ship Ochakov into position, placing the hull broadside -- side-on -- to the roughly 220-meter-wide (720-foot-wide) channel that leads to Donuzlav Lake. Using explosives, they scuttled the 173-meter-long ship, leaving it partially submerged and on its side, preventing large ship traffic from using the inlet. Though the entrance itself is 400 meters wide from jetty to jetty, ships must use the center of the cleared channel to avoid running aground.

Click to Enlarge

Since the beginning of March, Russian ground, air and naval forces have isolated Crimea from mainland Ukraine. Across the peninsula, all Ukrainian military installations have been systematically taken over or surrounded and contained, with the purpose of rendering them useless as a coordinated fighting force. To neutralize any ability to oppose Russian forces, Moscow has relied on overwhelming numbers of military assets. Prior to scuttling the Ochakov, the Russian navy had utilized 10 ships to contain the Ukrainian navy element in Donuzlav Lake.

The improvised blockage is an efficient, semi-permanent way for Russia to free up military assets for other uses. Although the Ukrainian navy is relatively weak compared to the Russian Black Sea Fleet, the Kremlin's operational planners still want to deny Ukraine the ability to concentrate force. Isolating Donuzlav Lake thus is a prudent move while Russia, Ukraine and the West haggle over Crimea. The removal of a scuttled ship in shallow waters can be very complex, expensive and time consuming. Given the present circumstances, with Russian forces in de facto control of Crimea, the Ukrainian navy has little to no ability to remove the obstacle. A large portion of Ukraine's naval forces will thus be sidelined from the ongoing tensions for at least the near future.

Click to Enlarge

Trapping Ukraine's warships may also give Russia a new bargaining option. Much of the present-day Ukrainian navy was appropriated from the former Soviet navy after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. In time, Russia might choose to retake part of its "lost fleet," depending on how negotiations play out with Ukraine. Reports from Crimea indicate that Russian ships have demanded Ukrainian sailors disembark in Sevastopol -- orders that so far have been refused. Russia has refrained from taking hostile action, possibly because boarding a ship can become complex and bloody if resistance is encountered. Russian forces have carefully avoided violence so far, seeking to bypass any incidents that could undermine Moscow's deeper geopolitical aspirations in Crimea.

Russia seems content to keep the besieged ships at Novoozerne contained as bargaining leverage. Ultimately, the main goal for Russia appears to be keeping all Ukrainian forces in Crimea paralyzed while deterring any military operation that seeks to alter the status quo on the peninsula. Dividing the Ukrainian fleet achieves this neatly.

************************************************************************************************

Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge

By Eugene Chausovsky

Just days before the Ukrainian crisis broke out, I took an overnight train to Kiev from Sevastopol in Crimea. Three mechanics in their 30s on their way to jobs in Estonia shared my compartment. All ethnic Russians born and raised in Sevastopol, they have made the trip to the Baltic states for the past eight years for seasonal work at Baltic Sea shipyards. Our ride together, accompanied by obligatory rounds of vodka, presented the opportunity for an in-depth discussion of Ukraine's political crisis. The ensuing conversation was perhaps more enlightening than talks of similar length with Ukrainian political, economic or security officials.

My fellow passengers viewed the events at Independence Square in an overwhelmingly negative light. They considered the protesters camped out in Kiev's central square terrorists, completely organized and financed by the United States and the European Union. They did not see the protesters as their fellow countrymen, and they supported then-President Viktor Yanukovich's use of the Berkut security forces to crack down on them. In fact, they were shocked by the Berkut's restraint, saying if it had been up to them, the protests would have been "cleaned up" from the outset. They added that while they usually looked forward to stopping over in Kiev during the long journey to the Baltics, this time they were ashamed of what was happening there and didn't even want to set foot in the city. They also predicted that the situation in Ukraine would worsen before it improved.

A few days later, the protests in Independence Square in fact reached a crescendo of violence. The Berkut closed in on the demonstrators, and subsequent clashes between protesters and security forces throughout the week left dozens dead and hundreds injured. This spawned a sequence of events that led to the overthrow of Yanukovich, the formation of a new Ukrainian government not recognized by Moscow and the subsequent Russian military intervention in Crimea. While the speed of these events astonished many foreign (especially Western) observers, to the men I met on the train, it was all but expected.

After all, the crisis didn't emerge from a vacuum. Ukraine was a polarized country well before the EuroMaidan movement took shape. I have always been struck by how traveling to different parts of Ukraine feels like visiting different countries. Every country has its regional differences, to be sure. But Ukraine stands apart in this regard.

Ukraine's East-West Divide

Traveling in Lviv in the west, for example, is a starkly different experience than traveling in Donetsk in the east. The language spoken is different, with Ukrainian used in Lviv and Russian in Donetsk. The architecture is different, too, with classical European architecture lining narrow cobblestoned streets in Lviv and Soviet apartment blocs alongside sprawling boulevards predominating in Donetsk. Each region has different heroes: A large bust of Lenin surveys the main square in Donetsk, while Stepan Bandera, a World War II-era Ukrainian nationalist revolutionary, is honored in Lviv. Citizens of Lviv commonly view people from Donetsk as pro-Russian rubes while people in Donetsk constantly speak of nationalists/fascists in Lviv.

Lviv and Donetsk lie on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but they are hardly alone. Views are even more polarized on the Crimean Peninsula, where ethnic Russians make up the majority and which soon could cease to be part of Ukraine.

The east-west Ukrainian cultural divide is deep, and unsurprisingly is reflected in the country's politics. Election results from the past 10 years show a clear dividing line between voting patterns in western and central Ukraine and those in the southern and eastern parts of the country. In the 2005 and 2010 presidential elections, Yanukovich received overwhelming support in the east and Crimea but only marginal support in the west. Ukraine does not have "swing states."

Such internal political and cultural divisions would be difficult to overcome under normal circumstances, but Ukraine's geographic and geopolitical position magnifies them exponentially. Ukraine is the quintessential borderland country, eternally trapped between Europe to the west and Russia to the east. Given its strategic location in the middle of the Eurasian heartland, the country has constantly been -- and will constantly be -- an arena in which the West and Russia duel for influence.

Competition over Ukraine has had two primary effects on the country. The first is to further polarize Ukraine, splitting foreign policy preferences alongside existing cultural divisions. While many in western Ukraine seek closer ties with Europe, many in eastern Ukraine seek closer ties with Russia. While there are those who would avoid foreign entanglements altogether, both the European Union and Russia have made clear that neutrality is not an option. Outside competition in Ukraine has created wild and often destabilizing political swings, especially during the country's post-Soviet independence.

Therefore, the current crisis in Ukraine is only the latest manifestation of competition between the West and Russia. The European Union and the United States greatly influenced the 2004 Orange Revolution in terms of financing and political organization. Russia meanwhile greatly influenced the discrediting of the Orange Regime and the subsequent election of Yanukovich, who lost in the Orange Revolution, in 2010. The West pushed back once more by supporting the EuroMaidan movement after Yanukovich abandoned key EU integration deals, and then Russia countered in Crimea, leading to the current impasse.

The tug of war between Russia and the West over Ukraine has gradually intensified over the past decade. This has hardened positions in Ukraine, culminating in the formation of armed groups representing rival political interests and leading to the violent standoff in Independence Square that quickly spread to other parts of the country.

The current government enjoys Western support, but Moscow and many in eastern and southern Ukraine deny its legitimacy, citing the manner in which it took power. This sets a dangerous precedent because it challenges the sitting government's and any future government's ability to claim any semblance of nationwide legitimacy.

It is clear that Ukraine cannot continue to function for long in its current form. A strong leader in such a polarized society will face major unrest, as Yanukovich's ouster shows. The lack of a national consensus will paralyze the government and prevent officials from forming coherent foreign policy, since any government that strikes a major deal with either Russia or the European Union will find it difficult to rightfully claim it speaks for the majority of the country. Now that Russia has used military moves in Crimea to show it will not let Ukraine go without a fight, the stage has been set for very difficult political negotiations over Ukraine's future.

Russian-Western Conflict Beyond Ukraine

A second, more worrying effect of the competition between the West and Russia over Ukraine extends beyond Ukrainian borders. As competition over the fate of Ukraine has escalated, it has also intensified Western-Russian competition elsewhere in the region.

Georgia and Moldova, two former Soviet countries that have sought stronger ties with the West, have accelerated their attempts to further integrate with the European Union -- and in Georgia's case, with NATO. On the other hand, countries such as Belarus and Armenia have sought to strengthen their economic and security ties with Russia. Countries already strongly integrated with the West like the Baltics are glad to see Western powers stand up to Russia, but meanwhile they know that they could be the next in line in the struggle between Russia and the West. Russia could hit them economically, and Moscow could also offer what it calls protection to their sizable Russian minorities as it did in Crimea. Russia already has hinted at this in discussions to extend Russian citizenship to ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers throughout the former Soviet Union.

The major question moving forward is how committed Russia and the West are to backing and reinforcing their positions in these rival blocs. Russia has made clear that it is willing to act militarily to defend its interests in Ukraine. Russia showed the same level of dedication to preventing Georgia from turning to NATO in 2008. Moscow has made no secret that it is willing to use a mixture of economic pressure, energy manipulation and, if need be, military force to prevent the countries on its periphery from leaving the Russian orbit. In the meantime, Russia will seek to intensify integration efforts in its own blocs, including the Customs Union on the economic side and the Collective Security Treaty Organization on the military side.

So the big question is what the West intends. On several occasions, the European Union and United States have proved that they can play a major role in shaping events on the ground in Ukraine. Obtaining EU membership is a stated goal of the governments in Moldova and Georgia, and a significant number of people in Ukraine also support EU membership. But since it has yet to offer sufficient aid or actual membership, the European Union has not demonstrated as serious a commitment to the borderland countries as Russia has. It has refrained from doing so for several reasons, including its own financial troubles and political divisions and its dependence on energy and trade with Russia. While the European Union may yet show stronger resolve as a result of the current Ukrainian crisis, a major shift in the bloc's approach is unlikely -- at least not on its own.

On the Western side, then, U.S. intentions are key. In recent years, the United States has largely stayed on the sidelines in the competition over the Russian periphery. The United States was just as quiet as the European Union was in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, and calls leading up to the invasion for swiftly integrating Ukraine and Georgia into NATO went largely unanswered. Statements were made, but little was done.

But the global geopolitical climate has changed significantly since 2008. The United States is out of Iraq and is swiftly drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. Washington is now acting more indirectly in the Middle East, using a balance-of-power approach to pursue its interests in the region. This frees up its foreign policy attention, which is significant, given that the United States is the only party with the ability and resources to make a serious push in the Russian periphery.

As the Ukraine crisis moves into the diplomatic realm, a major test of U.S. willingness and ability to truly stand up to Russia is emerging. Certainly, Washington has been quite vocal during the current Ukrainian crisis and has shown signs of getting further involved elsewhere in the region, such as in Poland and the Baltic states. But concrete action from the United States with sufficient backing from the Europeans will be the true test of how committed the West is to standing up to Moscow. Maneuvering around Ukraine's deep divisions and Russian countermoves will be no easy task. But nothing short of concerted efforts by a united Western front will suffice to pull Ukraine and the rest of the borderlands toward the West.

"Ukraine's Increasing Polarization and the Western Challenge" is republished with permission of Stratfor.

[John Dolva]

Well worth reading. ^

I think it's given that Ukraine will move towards the EU. It needs to be done cautiously by the Ukranian people, imo, because they have to come to know what it will really mean, the left has to be given an opportunity so far denied them by the far right elements of the coup to counter its ethnic purity stance. So far the west are largely ignoring this issue though there are some remarkable pieces by people in the west that show there is no consensus such as the mainstream media likes to present ( and not present ) and in the end governments may fall based on their stance on this issue alone, and others will be emboldened. This destabilisation is a factor that to the people in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea makes the stability that Russia brings to the table welcome and is sought by many in Ukraine as well. It is clear what the west must do. It must recognise the reactionary nature of what they like to call radicals and accept that the people in the ARC have a right to their choices just as much as they give that right to svoboda et al.

[John Dolva]

Prensa Latina :

"Today, the Washington Post urged president Obama to ask Ukraine's interim president Arseny Yatseniuk why ultra rightist forces have such an important role in the country's new government."

[Evan Burton]

It's a good point, John. But is it legal? Can the Crimea secede from the Ukraine? If not, should it be?

[Steven Gaal]

Hacked Email from U.S. Army Attache in Ukraine - For False Flags to occur so U.S. can take military action against Russia

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

================================

http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/03/hacked-email-from-us-army-attache-in.html

======================

Ukraine: How to Hide a Nazi Army

globalresearch 3/12/14

Blanket denials have been made across the Western media regarding the presence of Neo-Nazis among the ranks of “Euromaidan” mobs that had rioted in Kiev for months before finally executing a coup, ousting the democratically elected government of Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych. A prime example of this was the Daily Beast’s article, “Putin’s Crimea Propaganda Machine,” which disingenuously twists reality by stating

#####

…Putin needed a story to spin, no matter how full of holes, and thus the neo-Nazi claims. But as it turns out, Crimea’s streets are not exactly paved with extremists—a fact that has proven troublesome for Russian state TV channels looking to find token far-right bogeymen.

####

And of course, Crimea’s streets are not full of Neo-Nazis, because the population of eastern Ukraine wholly rejects the abhorrent ideology of the “Euromaidan’s” Nazi vanguard, and backs Russian forces who have been permanently stationed there for years under treaty and as a consequence, have deterred any abusive incursions by the far-right into the region.

Still, the impression the Daily Beast would like to get across to readers is that the concept of Neo-Nazis leading the so-called “revolution” in Kiev, is absurd. In fact, the truth that Kiev’s Independence Square was full of Nazis, was right under the nose of the entire world – with a handful of Western journalists even admitting as much.

Nazis Hiding in Plain Sight

The impressive pictures broadcast by the Western media of mobs filling Independence Square featured scores of large flags waving in the crisp cold air of Kiev. Prominent among them were the blue and yellow banners of Svoboda, with a peculiar 3-fingered salute stamped on each one. The odd iconography, had the Western media investigated, is in fact a revised Nazi salute, a play on the Ukrainian coat of arms and German Neo-Nazi Michael Kühnen’s three-fingered salute. Before that, Svoboda used the more obvious “Wolfsangel,” popular among Neo-Nazis and a symbol used by the Waffen SS during World War II.

Image: Neo-Nazi flags unfurled side-by-side with the European Union’s – with the revised 3-fingered salute on Svoboda’s party flag, the familiar Nazi black and red of “Right Sector,” and flags of the Hitleresque “Fatherland Party,” all hidden in plain sight in front of the world. The Western media’s selective omissions and its intentional failure to investigate and expose the true nature of an opposition they portrayed as “pro-democracy” and “pro-West” helped build international support for a movement the global public would otherwise have recoiled in disgust from.

Svoboda was officially linked to paramilitary organizations until as late as 2007, and is still loosely affiliated with them. The organization has attempted to “soften” its image, or in other words, bury its extremist ideology under a moderate facade to covertly move it forward.

Spiegel Online would report in its article, “‘Prepared to Die’: The Right Wing’s Role in Ukrainian Protests,” that:

####

The Svoboda party also has excellent ties to Europe, but they are different from the ones that Klischko might prefer. It is allied with France’s right-wing Front National and with the Italian neo-fascist group Fiamma Tricolore. But when it comes to the oppression of homosexuality, representative Myroshnychenko is very close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, even if he does all he can to counter Moscow’s influence in his country.

####

The EU is the only possibility for us to defend ourselves against Russian pressure,” he says. He and his party see the alliance with Klitschko as being purely tactical. Klitschko, after all, would like to limit the powers of the president while Svoboda dreams of a country with a strong leader.

####

Myroshnychenko was press spokesman for the Ukrainian national football team in the lead up to the 2008 European Championships, but he isn’t exactly cosmopolitan. He would even like to see foreign professional football players deported because they “change Ukraine’s ethnic map.”

####

Without the nationalists’ tight organization, the revolt on Maidan Square would long since have collapsed. But Svoboda also embodies the greatest danger to the protest movement. The party’s foot soldiers, with their muddled, right wing doctrine, aren’t likely to hold back for much longer.”

There have been other, similar incidents. In a 2012 debate over the Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis, he said that she wasn’t Ukrainian, rather she was a “Jewess.” Indeed, anti-Semitism is part of the extremist party’s platform; until 2004, they called themselves the Social-National Party of Ukraine in an intentional reference to Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party. Just last summer, a prominent leader of party youth was distributing texts from Nazi propaganda head Joseph Goebbels translated into Ukrainian.

Image: Signed by Svoboda party leader Oleh Tyahnybok,
a 2005 open letter titled, ”Stop the Criminal Activities of
Organised Jewry” exemplifies the ideologies of groups
leading the so-called “Euromaidan” uprising – groups
the West has openly and eagerly supported.

Speigel Online notes what other independent geopolitical analysts have been saying since the mobs took to Kiev’s streets months ago, that the “pro-democracy,” “pro-European” facade was propped up by literal Nazis who were armed and fully backed by the US – and without which, the entire movement would have collapsed.

The BBC admitted of current Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok, in a 2012 article titled, “Svoboda: The rise of Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists,” that:

####

But while the party’s radical past can be papered over, it cannot be erased. Its name until 2004 was the “Social-National Party” and it maintains informal links to another group, the Patriots of Ukraine, regarded by some as proto-fascist.

####

In 2005, he signed an open letter to Ukrainian leaders, including President Yushchenko, calling for the government to halt the “criminal activities” of “organised Jewry”, which, the letter said, was spreading its influence in the country through conspiratorial organisations as the Anti-Defamation League – and which ultimately wanted to commit “genocide” against the Ukrainian people.

Astonishingly, it would be overt Jew-hater Oleh Tyahnybok that US Senator John McCain would share the stage with in Kiev during the climax of “Euromaidan” in support of the “pro-European” mobs.

In 2004, Tyahnybok was kicked out of former President Viktor Yushchenko’s parliamentary faction for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a “Muscovite-Jewish mafia” – using two highly insulting words to describe Russians and Jews – and emphasising that Ukrainians had in the past fought this threat with arms.

Image: US Senator John McCain in Kiev flanked on his left side by overt Jew-hater and Svoboda party leader, Oleh Tyahnybok. The West’s willingness to ally itself with violent bigots, racists and literal Nazis exposes its “values” as nothing more than a selectively upheld facade easily disposed of when inconvenient – and entirely designed to couch its true, corporate-financier driven hegemonic designs behind.

While the opposition that has now seized Kiev claims to share “European values,” one must wonder just what those values are. While the West uses alleged anti-homosexual policies in Moscow as a pressure point against Russia, it gladly allies itself with anti-homosexual bigots and racists in Kiev. Apparently, “European values” are whatever can be selectively leveraged when beneficial, and blatantly ignored when inconvenient.

While other groups among the Ukrainian opposition exhibit their extremist views more overtly than Svoboda, like Right Sector, there are also opposition parties that conceal their bigotry, racism, and right-wing ideology with more skill. This includes protest leaders in Kiev such as Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleksandr Turchynov, both of deposed, disgraced, convicted criminal, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s All Ukrainian Union or “Fatherland” party. Both have taken controversial stances regarding homosexuals.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk would go as far as stating - when his views regarding homosexual marriage were labelled “conservative” – that:

”I do not agree. If a man has normal views, then you label him a conservative, but those who use drugs or promote sodomy – you label them a progressive person. All of these are perversions.”

And despite all of this, news organizations like the BBC have attempted to endear global audiences to Ukraine’s pro-EU Nazis in articles like, “Ukraine protests: Singing in the cold.”

Russia’s Standing Up to Nazis – And Paying the Price (Again)

The BBC itself has already admitted that armed Nazis played a leading role in overthrowing the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. In its short video report, “Neo-Nazi threat in new Ukraine,” it exposes a nightmarish resurgence of Nazi ideology, and all the blind hatred and violence that goes with it. Despite this admission, the British state-owned media arm would publish an outrageous article titled, “Crimea seen as ‘Hitler-style’ land grab,” where BBC editor Simona Kralova attempts to draw historical parallels, not between Russia’s stalwart fight against Nazis in World War II, but how Russia is now acting like the Nazis in World War II.

After admitting that the West backed literal Nazis in the armed overthrow of a democratically elected government in Kiev, for the BBC to then accuse Russia and in particular President Vladimir Putin’s defense of what’s left of Ukraine as a “Hitler-style land grab,” presents unparalleled deceit, and perhaps even desperation from the Western media.

One must wonder what else the West would expect Russia to do directly along its own borders, when it itself admits Nazis have overrun the Ukrainian capital (with their assistance) and considering the disastrous toll Russia paid during World War II when last they crossed paths with Adolf Hitler’s toxic Nazi ideology. 20 to 30 million Russians died in that struggle, perplexing the mind that the West would now condemn Russia for minding the lessons of history and standing up against Nazism yet again before it is able to find a foothold from which to exact another historically tragic toll upon humanity.

The BBC and others across the Western media have for years quietly chronicled the rise of extremist groups like Svoboda in Ukraine, and despite this, they have turned apologists for ideologies and agendas they themselves categorize as intolerable within their own societies. Much of what Svoboda and other right-wing groups now in power in Kiev do, would be considered “hate crimes” in the West where Svoboda draws its support.

Russia finds itself once again on the right side of history, but again, appears poised to pay the price. While growing numbers of people begin to see through the “Euromaidan” facade, the US, UK, and EU are already poised to for a wider confrontation with Russia over its attempts to check the fascist foothold the West has created directly along its borders.

It is truly dangerous times when Nazis are the heroes and those standing up against them are the villains. The tired but true cliche of “failing to learn from history,” comes to mind. The doom of repeating history now lays before us.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Edited March 12, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[John Dolva]

It seems a complex issue, Evan. There are starkly differing opinions floating around. I have my opinions which I'll elaborate on later.

Many hold that the last legal act in kiev was the feb 21 agreement. The ARC has a strong case. A number of spokespersons for a number of governments automatically goose-steps with mouthpieces of us imperialism. Probably there will be persons who have the courage to break ranks and take the russian position seriously. We'll see. I suspect there will.

Philosophically there is such as Bakunins 'property is theft' pov which de-legitimises ALL governments.

edit typos

Edited March 13, 2014 by John Dolva

[Evan Burton]

I'm not impressed by the wording of the referendum:

Option 1: Do you support Crimea joining Russian Federation as a federal subject? Option 2: Do you support restoration of 1992 Crimean Constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?

The second gives the parliament the power to join the Federation... which they have already announced they'll do. So no-one can say "No - let's keep the status quo!".

It's heads I win, tails you lose.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579012/Crimean-parliament-offers-two-options-referendum-voting-slips-Join-Russia-join-later.html

[John Dolva]

Spoilers and donkeys vote too. A move to a declaration of independence is important in the process of legitimisation. It still needs to be known whether the people in kiev claiming to be so are actually legitimate themselves. Mere statements of people doesn't make it so. Take a look at the map on wikis page on this. See that blob of red? That's the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. When they recognise that what happened in kiev was engineered by some very bad people who hijacked a legitimate popular revolt with identity slogans and then are shoveled into the already questionable 'interim government' in such important positions as heads of significant positions and the already questionable government then starts a process of effectively outlawing russian speakers and so on and becuase russia then becomes the bad guy... ? What do you expect? The wests refusal to deal with this point re role of 'ultra-nationals' (yes, read nazis) isn't winning them any points anywhere.

Here is where I wish Olaf Palme was alive and seeing his program for reaching a lasting stability implemented. If russia can be absolutely assured that russias territorial integrity, the way it wants to govern and its respectful inclusion in all areas of.social endeavour guided by well established rules of engagement the west would see that, no, the russians are NOT coming.

Anyway, back to votes. There can be little doubt that the ARC will enhance its independence and I'm sure the parliament will take into account the voting.

[John Dolva]

http://www.granma.cu/mundo

Ucrania en la mira geopolítica de Occidente

La pugna con Occidente en la cuestión ucraniana tiene de trasfondo los serios cuestionamientos de Rusia a la ampliación de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN) alrededor de sus fronteras y la política de dobles raseros

Autor: Odalys Buscarón Ochoa | internet@granma.cu

14 de marzo de 2014

Este 16 de marzo los habitantes de Crimea decidirán mediante un referéndum si se adhieren o no a Rusia. Foto: Reuters

MOSCÚ.—La pugna con Occidente en la cuestión ucraniana tiene de trasfondo los serios cuestionamientos de Rusia a la ampliación de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN) alrededor de sus fronteras y la política de dobles raseros.

Las relaciones ruso-estadounidenses cerraron 2013 un año de crecida tirantez por viejos y nuevos problemas que hacen cada vez más visibles la brecha entre Washington y Moscú en las perspectivas de la política mundial y la creciente tendencia hacia un orden multipolar.

El desenlace de los acontecimientos ucranianos tras el golpe de Estado anticonstitucional y la destitución ilegal del presidente Víktor Yanukóvich, con el guiño cómplice de Occidente, colocó a Ucrania en el epicentro de dos polos contrapuestos.

Rusia ha sido firme en su postura de no reconocer la legitimidad del proceso violento gestado allí durante los últimos meses, y en consecuencia, la toma del poder armado por sectores de derecha y fascistas.

Para muchos expertos, la confrontación verbal por la cuestión ucraniana, en relación con las amenazas y sanciones contra Moscú, significa apenas la punta del iceberg dentro del océano de contradicciones por las visiones contrarias y los intereses geopolíticos.

Según el criterio del politólogo Valeri Mijailin, a la sombra de la retórica oficial de Occidente se esconden muchas otras cosas relacionadas con los intereses y la política de Estados Unidos, la Unión Europea (UE) y la OTAN, contrapuestos a Rusia.

El investigador alemán y especialista sobre Rusia, Alexander Rar, coincidió con otros expertos en que esa puja en torno a Ucrania hace pensar en una nueva época de guerra fría y no descartó una membresía del país centroeuropeo en la alianza militar occidental.

La directora general del Instituto de Investigaciones e Iniciativas de Política Exterior, Veronika Krasheninnikova, observó al respecto que la guerra fría nunca terminó, y en estos últimos tiempos Estados Unidos y aliados de la OTAN han llevado a cabo una variante enmascarada y silenciosa.

Rememoró la politóloga en una entrevista exclusiva a Prensa Latina que, tras la desintegración de la Unión Soviética en 1991, Rusia y otros estados del espacio postsoviético sucumbieron en una situación de debilidad, y por largo tiempo no pudieron contrarrestar la ofensiva de Estados Unidos.

Una década después, con un potencial político y económico en ascenso, la nación euroasiática estuvo en condiciones de defender sus intereses y los de otros amigos en el mundo, subrayó.

Consideró Krasheninnikova que tras los reveses en Siria e Irán, y la firme posición rusa en Ucrania, Washington y Occidente decidieron ir a la ofensiva. No podían perder, ante un escenario orquestado por las fuerzas fascistas y pro-occidentales en ese país.

Y se trataba básicamente de reconfigurar el panorama político interno y el balance de fuerzas, por cuanto significaba sacar del tablero al presidente Yanukóvich y a su partido, las Regiones.

De fondo, concuerda la experta, la base de las contradicciones con Moscú radica en las ambiciones de la OTAN de continuar su avance y ampliación hacia las fronteras rusas a cuenta de incluir a Ucrania, y “ello es un factor muy peligroso, al cual no debió llegarse”, advirtió.

En los últimos 20 años, el bloque militar creció de 16 miembros a 28 estados aliados, y no deja de estimular la entrada de otras repúblicas exsoviéticas como Georgia, Armenia y Azerbaiyán.

Desde el punto de vista del mapa político de Europa, es imposible imaginar a Ucrania en la OTAN y también desde el punto de vista de los intereses de Rusia, exteriorizó Krasheninnikova.

GOLPE DE ESTADO ARMADO PATROCINADO POR OCCIDENTE

El 22 de febrero tuvo lugar en Ucrania un golpe de Estado armado. Como resultado, llegó al poder un gobierno autoproclamado, constituido por un lado por agentes de Occidente, y por otro, por ultranacionalistas y fascistas, esbozó la analista rusa.

Arseni Yatseniuk, quien se considera a sí mismo el primer ministro, no fue fruto de una elección del pueblo ucraniano, sino de Estados Unidos.

Lo corrobora una conversación filtrada entre la secretaria de Estado adjunta, Victoria Nuland, y el embajador de ese país en Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt.

En dichas pláticas ellos apostaron, recordó la experta, sobre sus preferencias en cuanto al gobierno ucraniano, y dijeron abiertamente que Yatseniuk tenía que ser el primer ministro.

Otro líder de la oposición ucraniana, de la llamada ala moderada, es el boxeador Vitali Klichkó. Su partido Udar (Golpe), fue financiado y creado por iniciativa del partido alemán de los demócrata-cristianos. La Fundación Konrad Adenauer, asociada con la Unión Demócrata Cristiana, desarrolló en el 2010 el concepto de esa formación. De manera que Udar fue creado con recursos alemanes. Además Klichkó es ciudadano alemán, y se supone, no tiene ningún fundamento para aspirar al puesto de presidente de Ucrania.

También el Gobierno autoproclamado en Kiev lo integran fascistas. El nombrado jefe del Consejo Nacional de Seguridad Nacional, Andrei Parubi, fundó en 1991 junto a Oleg Tiagnibok el partido neonazi Libertad (Svoboda), que en el 2012 obtuvo 37 escaños de diputado en el parlamento unicameral.

Otra figura de esa organización que emergió tras el golpe de Estado es Dmitri Yarosh, cabecilla del Sector Derecho, acusado por Rusia de instigar el terrorismo, y sujeto a una orden de captura internacional.

Krasheninnikova recordó que fue precisamente esa agrupación la que integró comandos armados y llevó a cabo acciones de represión durante las protestas en la Plaza de la Independencia (Maidán), matando a policías y civiles ucranianos.

Ese golpe de Estado y la destitución del presidente legítimo, Víktor Yanukóvich, se produjeron con el apoyo de los gobiernos occidentales, recalcó la politóloga rusa.

Dijo que tal afirmación la corroboran muchos de quienes estuvieron en Maidán, epicentro de las protestas, donde se realizaron coordinaciones estrechas entre representantes de agencias de inteligencia occidentales y los activistas del Sector Derecho.

Para Krasheninnikova, todas esas actuaciones, el posterior golpe y sus consecuencias son ilegítimas, y quienes no ven a Stepan Bandera (nacionalista ucraniano que colaboró con los nazis) como su héroe, no están obligados a obedecer a esas autoridades.

Algunas de las regiones del este y sur de Ucrania no reconocen al Gobierno impuesto en Kiev y se declararon favorables a una unificación con Rusia, entre ellas, la república autónoma de Crimea y Sebastopol. Similares manifestaciones separatistas se suceden en Járkov, Donetsk, Jerson y Nikolaev.

En Occidente, y sobre todo en Washington, insisten en que la decisión sobre el referendo en Crimea no es legítima. Sin embargo, apuntó la investigadora rusa, la Casa Blanca y una parte de Europa reconocen la independencia de los estados, aquellos que les ofrecen beneficios con ese estatus.

Mientras, se niegan categóricamente a reconocer la independencia de los pueblos que no se someten a ellos.

Valdría preguntar de nuevo por qué hace unos años Kosovo consiguió la independencia y Estados Unidos fue el que más insistió en ello. La respuesta es sencilla. Necesitaba a Kosovo, dijo Krasheninnikova, pues en ese territorio el Pentágono abrió su mayor base militar en Europa, la Bondsteel.

Washington tampoco se opuso a la independencia de Sudán del Sur porque precisamente en ese territorio se concentra la mayor parte de los yacimientos de petróleo. Y resultó un beneficio para ellos controlar de esa forma los yacimientos y la extracción del crudo.

Contrastó igualmente que en paralelo a la consulta de Crimea, se prepara el plebiscito en Escocia con vistas a su independencia, y Estados Unidos no tiene nada en contra de ese referendo.

Es otro ejemplo más de la enorme hipocresía norteamericana y falta de respeto a la opinión de otros pueblos, sentenció la politóloga rusa.
*Jefa de la corresponsalía de Prensa Latina en Rusia.

Rusia mantiene contactos con Europa para solución de crisis en Ucrania

El ministro ruso de Asuntos Exteriores, Serguei Lavrov, intercambió este miércoles opiniones con el secretario general del Consejo de Europa, Thorbjon Jagland, sobre los mecanismos bilaterales para contribuir a una normalización de la situación en Ucrania.

0 COMENTARIOS

• Parlamento de Crimea aprueba la declaración de independencia
• Parlamento de Crimea aprueba adherirse a la Federación Rusa
• Crisis ucraniana llega a Crimea

edit format

Edited March 14, 2014 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

"30-årig högerextremist jagas efter knivattacken i Malmö

...Aftonbladet kan i dag avslöja att mannen som polisen jagar efter attacken i Malmö är en välkänd 30-årig nazist....

...

Var nyligen i Ukraina

Den 30-årige nazisten har medverkat i flera högerextrema demonstrationer, bland annat i Helsingborg 2010, i Hässleholm 2009 och i Stockholm 2013.

Han var nyligen i Ukraina, något han rapporterade om på en högerextrem sajt.

Han är dömd för flera brott sedan tidigare. Bland annat för en misshandel av en lesbisk kvinna 2005...."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article18536762.ab

: One (recently returned from Ukraine) of the nazis that attacked and seriously wounded people in Malmö a few days ago is being hunted by the police. The other two are in custody.