Peter Lemkin Wrote:Neocons' Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit

March 19, 2014

Exclusive: The Ukraine crisis in part stirred up by U.S. neocons has damaged prospects for peace not only on Russia's borders but in two Middle East hotspots, Syria and Iran, which may have been exactly the point, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
You might think that policymakers with so many bloody fiascos on their résumés as the U.S. neocons, including the catastrophic Iraq War, would admit their incompetence and return home to sell insurance or maybe work in a fast-food restaurant. Anything but directing the geopolitical decisions of the world's leading superpower.
But Official Washington's neocons are nothing if not relentless and resilient. They are also well-funded and well-connected. So they won't do the honorable thing and disappear. They keep hatching new schemes and strategies to keep the world stirred up and to keep their vision of world domination and particularly "regime change" in the Middle East alive.
Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists at a rally in Kiev.

Now, the neocons have stoked a confrontation over Ukraine, involving two nuclear-armed states, the United States and Russia. But even if nuclear weapons don't come into play the neocons have succeeded in estranging U.S. President Barack Obama from Russian President Vladimir Putin and sabotaging the pair's crucial cooperation on Iran and Syria, which may have been the point all along.
Though the Ukraine crisis has roots going back decades, the chronology of the recent uprising and the neocon interest in it meshes neatly with neocon fury over Obama and Putin working together to avert a U.S. military strike against Syria last summer and then brokering an interim nuclear agreement with Iran last fall that effectively took a U.S. bombing campaign against Iran off the table.
With those two top Israeli priorities U.S. military attacks on Syria and Iran sidetracked, the American neocons began activating their influential media and political networks to counteract the Obama-Putin teamwork. The neocon wedge to splinter Obama away from Putin was driven into Ukraine.
Operating out of neocon enclaves in the U.S. State Department and at U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, led by the National Endowment for Democracy, neocon operatives targeted Ukraine even before the recent political unrest began shaking apart the country's fragile ethnic and ideological cohesion.
Last September, as the prospects for a U.S. military strike against Syria were fading thanks to Putin, NED president Carl Gershman, who is something of a neocon paymaster controlling more than $100 million in congressionally approved funding each year, took to the pages of the neocon-flagship Washington Post and wrote that Ukraine was now "the biggest prize."
But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words, the new hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow.
Putin had made himself a major annoyance in Neocon World, particularly with his diplomacy on Syria that defused a crisis over a Sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Despite the attack's mysterious origins and the absence of any clear evidence proving the Syrian government's guilt the U.S. State Department and the U.S. news media rushed to the judgment that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did it.
Politicians and pundits baited Obama with claims that Assad had brazenly crossed Obama's "red line" by using chemical weapons and that U.S. "credibility" now demanded military retaliation. A longtime Israeli/neocon goal, "regime change" in Syria, seemed within reach.
But Putin brokered a deal in which Assad agreed to surrender Syria's chemical weapons arsenal (even as he continued to deny any role in the Sarin attack). The arrangement was a huge letdown for the neocons and Israeli officials who had been drooling over the prospect that a U.S. bombing campaign would bring Assad to his knees and deliver a strategic blow against Iran, Israel's current chief enemy.
Putin then further offended the neocons and the Israeli government by helping to facilitate an interim nuclear deal with Iran, making another neocon/Israeli priority, a U.S. war against Iran, less likely.
Putting Putin in Play
So, the troublesome Putin had to be put in play. And, NED's Gershman was quick to note a key Russian vulnerability, neighboring Ukraine, where a democratically elected but corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, was struggling with a terrible economy and weighing whether to accept a European aid offer, which came with many austerity strings attached, or work out a more generous deal with Russia.
There was already a strong U.S.-organized political/media apparatus in place for destabilizing Ukraine's government. Gershman's NED had 65 projects operating in the country training "activists," supporting "journalists" and organizing business groups, according to its latest report. (NED was created in 1983 to do in relative openness what the CIA had long done in secret, nurture pro-U.S. operatives under the umbrella of "promoting democracy.")
So, when Yanukovych opted for Russia's more generous $15 billion aid package, the roof fell in on him. In a speech to Ukrainian business leaders last December, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover and the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, reminded the group that the U.S. had invested $5 billion in Ukraine's "European aspirations."
Then, urged on by Nuland and neocon Sen. John McCain, protests in the capital of Kiev turned increasingly violent with neo-Nazi militias moving to the fore. Unidentified snipers opened fire on protesters and police, touching off fiery clashes that killed some 80 people (including about a dozen police officers).
On Feb. 21, in a desperate attempt to tamp down the violence, Yanukovych signed an agreement brokered by European countries. He agreed to surrender many of his powers, to hold early elections (so he could be voted out of office), and pull back the police. That last step, however, opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias to overrun government buildings and force Yanukovych to flee for his life.
With these modern-day storm troopers controlling key buildings and brutalizing Yanukovych supporters a rump Ukrainian parliament voted, in an extra-constitutional fashion, to remove Yanukovych from office. This coup-installed regime, with far-right parties controlling four ministries including defense, received immediate U.S. and European Union recognition as Ukraine's "legitimate" government.
As remarkable and newsworthy as it was that a government on the European continent included Nazis in the executive branch for the first time since World War II, the U.S. news media performed as it did before the Iraq War and during various other international crises. It essentially presented the neocon-preferred narrative and treated the presence of the neo-Nazis as some kind of urban legend.
Virtually across the board, from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, the U.S. press corps fell in line, painting Yanukovych and Putin as the "black-hat" villains and the coup regime as the "white-hat" good guys, which required, of course, whiting out the neo-Nazi "brown shirts."
Neocon Expediency
Some neocon defenders have challenged my reporting that U.S. neocons played a significant role in the Ukrainian putsch. One argument is that the neocons, who regard the U.S.-Israeli bond as inviolable, would not knowingly collaborate with neo-Nazis given the history of the Holocaust (and indeed the role of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators in extermination campaigns against Poles and Jews).
But the neocons have frequently struck alliances of convenience with some of the most unsavory and indeed anti-Semitic forces on earth, dating back to the Reagan administration and its collaboration with Latin American "death squad" regimes, including work with the World Anti-Communist League that included not only neo-Nazis but aging real Nazis.
More recently in Syria, U.S. neocons (and Israeli leaders) are so focused on ousting Assad, an ally of hated Iran, that they have cooperated with Saudi Arabia's Sunni monarchy (known for its gross anti-Semitism). Israeli officials have even expressed a preference for Saudi-backed Sunni extremists winning in Syria if that is the only way to get rid of Assad and hurt his allies in Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah.
Last September, Israel's Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in the interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran."
Oren said that was Israel's view even if the other "bad guys" were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
Oren, who was Israel's point man in dealing with Official Washington's neocons, is considered very close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and reflects his views. For decades, U.S. neocons have supported Netanyahu and his hardline Likud Party, including as strategists on his 1996 campaign for prime minister when neocons such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith developed the original "regime change" strategy. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]
In other words, Israel and its U.S. neocon supporters have been willing to collaborate with extreme right-wing and even anti-Semitic forces if that advances their key geopolitical goals, such as maneuvering the U.S. government into military confrontations with Syria and Iran.
So, while it may be fair to assume that neocons like Nuland and McCain would have preferred that the Ukraine coup had been spearheaded by militants who weren't neo-Nazis or, for that matter, that the Syrian rebels were not so dominated by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists the neocons (and their Israeli allies) see these tactical collaborations as sometimes necessary to achieve overarching strategic priorities.
And, since their current strategic necessity is to scuttle the fragile negotiations over Syria and Iran, which otherwise might negate the possibility of U.S. military strikes against those two countries, the Putin-Obama collaboration had to go.
By spurring on the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected president, the neocons helped touch off a cascade of events now including Crimea's secession from Ukraine and its annexation by Russia that have raised tensions and provoked Western retaliation against Russia. The crisis also has made the continued Obama-Putin teamwork on Syria and Iran extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Like other neocon-engineered schemes, there will surely be much collateral damage in this latest one. For instance, if the tit-for-tat economic retaliations escalate and Russian gas supplies are disrupted Europe's fragile recovery could be tipped back into recession, with harmful consequences for the U.S. economy, too.
There's also the certainty that congressional war hawks and neocon pundits will press for increased U.S. military spending and aggressive tactics elsewhere in the world to punish Putin, meaning even less money and attention for domestic programs or deficit reduction. Obama's "nation-building at home" will be forgotten.
But the neocons have long made it clear that their vision for the world one of America's "full-spectrum dominance" and "regime change" in Middle Eastern countries opposed to Israel overrides all other national priorities. And as long as the neocons face no accountability for the havoc that they wreak, they will continue working Washington's corridors of power, not selling insurance or flipping hamburgers.

This is a great article, I thought, and certainly clarifies the whole drama.

Quote:Putin laughs off sanctions as he signs bills to transfer Crimea to Russia

President promises to open account at blacklisted bank as west signals intent to maintain pressure over Ukraine crisis

• Alec Luhn in Moscow
  
• theguardian.com, Friday 21 March 2014 13.05 GMT
  

Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, signs a law on ratification of a treaty making Crimea part of Russia, in the Kremlin in Moscow. Photograph: Mikhail Klimentyev/AFP/Getty

Vladimir Putin has laughed off western sanctions against Russia, promising to open an account in a bank on the US blacklist, but indicating that he will not escalate the Ukraine crisis further.
A day after the US extended its sanctions blacklist to take in businesspeople and aides from Putin's inner circle, the Russian president told his security council that he would not take retaliatory measures against the US sanctions nor against threats that Ukraine will implement a visa regime with Russia.
But at the same time, he completed the annexation of Crimea by signing new legislation completing the transfer of the peninsula to the Russian Federation. Putin described it as a "remarkable event", as he signed the bills on Friday.
Western powers signalled their intention to maintain the pressure, with France announcing a suspension of all military co-operation with the country and offering warplanes to the Baltic republics, which also have sizeable Russian minority populations and borders with it. The US was reportedly organising military exercises in eastern Europe to include Poland and the Baltic trio of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
But Putin appeared insouciant in the face of the western manoeuvres. In response to the US move to include Bank Rossiya on the blacklist because it is believed to be the "personal bank for senior officials of the Russian Federation", Putin joked: "I personally didn't have an account there, but I'll definitely open an account there on Monday."
As for the 20 influential officials added to the US sanctions list, a smiling Putin warned: "Stay away from them, they'll compromise us".
Visa and Mastercard have stopped servicing cardholders of Bank Rossiya, as well as those of SMP Bank, which is controlled by the Rotenberg brothers now sanctioned by the US. The move marked the first time sanctions have affected ordinary Russians.
There was a stern Russian attitude towards Ukraine, however. At the meeting, the Russian prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, said that an agreement under which Russia gave Ukraine deep discounts on Russian gas in return for allowing Russia to keep its Black Sea fleet in Crimea should be cancelled now that Russia controlled Crimea. Russia should seek the return of the $11bn (£6.7bn) that Ukraine saved under the agreement, as well as $5bn in other debts, Medvedev said.
Investcafe analyst Andrei Shenk said the threat to call in debts was likely meant to keep Ukraine from taking radical steps, such as instituting a visa regime.
"It's a deterrent that can later be used in negotiations" over Russia's use of Ukrainian gas pipelines to sell its product to Europe, which may eventually be cut off in the political conflict, Shenk said.
Putin told the meeting that "millions of completely innocent Ukrainians" who worked in Russia would suffer under any visa regime.
At the same time, the US sanctions seemed to be taking a slight toll on the Russian economy. Russian stocks dropped on Friday, with the Moscow market falling by as much as 4%, although it later began to recover. Companies connected to individuals on the sanctions list suffered the most.
Meanwhile, the US ratings agencies Fitch and S&P downgraded the outlook on the country's long-term foreign and local currency ratings to negative.
But, Shenk said, the mainly political US sanctions posed "the threat of harm more than direct harm" to the Russian economy. For now, only financial organisations would really be affected, as the cost of credit from western banks would rise for them, he said.
The already weakened ruble did not fall significantly against the euro and the dollar on Friday.
Russia's Central Bank promised to support Bank Rossiya, apparently guaranteeing that it would not let the bank fail now that US sanctions had cut off its dealings with international credit card companies and other institutions.
Shenk said Russia was unlikely to respond to the US sanctions not only because it lacked the instruments to do so, but because firing back with its own sanctions would admit the legality of the measure.
"For now, it's a political decision not to answer sanctions, not to acknowledge the legitimacy of such actions," he said.

Putin saying he will not take any retaliatory measures against US sanctions, nor Ukraine's threats to impose Visa restrictions, steals the wind from the sails of the neocons I think. They'd love nothing better than him hitting back so they could justify further escalation.

A Fatal Taboo Violation

2014/03/21

KIEV/BERLIN
(Own report) - The raids on TV editorial boards by parliamentarians in the new Ukrainian government, which Germany helped bring to power, is provoking massive protests. Tuesday evening, Svoboda Party MPs stormed the office of the acting President of the National Television Co. of Ukraine (NTU) and forced him to resign with physical blows and verbal insults. A similar incident took place the day before in Chernihiv. Dozens of journalists in Kiev and the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media have harshly criticized these attacks, which are in line with Svoboda's electoral program promising to revoke the licenses of all media "spreading anti-Ukrainian propaganda." Svoboda's party program calls also for making the day of the founding of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) a national holiday. The UPA had participated in the massacres of Jewish Ukrainians and tens of thousands of Poles - according to estimates, up to 100.000 people. The German Foreign Minister has lent this party international social respectability and German media is characterizing Svoboda not as "fascist," but merely as "nationalist." A leading German daily claims that the leader, Oleh Tiahnybok, has led his party "out of the right-wing quagmire."


Svoboda's Media Specialist
The raid on the National Television Co. of Ukraine (NTU) carried out by a group of Svoboda parliamentarians and thugs, has provoked new protests against the new Ukrainian government. Under the leadership of MP Ihor Miroshnychenko, the Svoboda activists forced their way into NTU President Oleksandr Panteleymonov's office, accusing him of serving Russian propaganda interests because he had broadcast excerpts of the speech, Russian President Putin had held that day. They physically assaulted him and forced him to resign. Miroshnychenko is the Deputy Chair of the parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Speech and Information. A video of the attack can be seen on the internet.[1]

Editorial Cooperation
This has not been the only such incident. According to the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, already on Monday, a group of unnamed individuals stormed the national television office in the Chernigov region, forcing its director, Arkadiy Bilibayev, to resign.[2] The "Right Sector's" militia occupied the TV station "Tonis" and suggested "editorial cooperation."[3]

Other Methods
Svoboda's attacks have sparked protests. In Kiev, dozens of journalists demonstrated against intimidation attempts using force to end non-conformist reporting. OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatović expressed her "outrage." The attack on NTU Director in Kiev is a "particularly serious incident," also because it was perpetrated by members of the freedom of speech and information committee of the Parliament. Svoboda leader Oleh Tiahnybok has now officially dissociated himself from the attack, declaring that his party must "understand" that it no longer is in the opposition and therefore, should use "other methods." Tiahnybok himself has used violence together with Miroshnychenko, as can be seen on the photo (right) taken in the Kiev parliament. A year ago, Miroshnychenko had made himself a name, when insulting Ukrainian actress, Mila Kunis he referred to her as "Jew."

"Typical Russian Propaganda"
While its fascist character becomes more evident, from one day to the next, the Svoboda Party has undergone quite a surprising rhetorical carrier in leading German media organs. Whereas, in the fall of 2013, there was a basic consensus that the party was rightwing extremist, it has since gone through a major transformation. As a dwindling number of editorial boards is characterizing Svoboda as "fascist" or "rightwing extremist," a growing number is using such attributes as "rightwing populist," "nationalist," or also, more recently, "national conservative." Just a few days ago, a German daily wrote that Svoboda, possibly "before 2004, had nurtured rightwing extremist traditions." However, its leader Oleh Tiahnybok has since "led the party out of this rightwing quagmire." It would be "difficult to find fascist or anti-Semitic remarks he [Tiahnybok, (editor's note)] has made over the past few years," according to the "Tagesspiegel." Besides, the "fascism accusation" is part "of the typical Russian propaganda."[4]

Fascist?
If one would take this allegation seriously, various Svoboda activities under Tiahnybok's leadership in 2013 would no longer be considered "fascist" or "rightwing extremist." This would include a neo-Nazi "Svenskarnas Party" (Party of the Swedes) meeting, March 23 - 24 2013 in Stockholm, where Svoboda was represented and one of the keynote speakers was from the German NPD party. There would also be Svoboda's participation at the "Boreal Festival" in mid-September 2013 in Cantù, Italy, where, alongside the "Svenskarnas Party," also Italy's neo-fascist "Forza-Nuova" and the "British National Party" were also present, or a meeting of a Svoboda party delegation with Saxony's NPD regional parliamentary group in late May.[5] The April 28, 2013, commemoration celebration organized by Svoboda in Lviv for the 70th Anniversary of the founding of the "Galician" SS Division, with a Svoboda parliamentarian in Kiev as keynote speaker, would have nothing at all to do with fascism. The next day, Tiahnybok met in Kiev with the German ambassador.[6] According to the "Tagesspiegel's" allegations, Svoboda's memorial celebration in October 2013 of the October 14, 1942 founding of the "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) would also not qualify as fascist. The UPA had massacred around 100,000 people in the wake of the Nazi occupiers, particularly Jews.

National Holiday
The German government claims that "in the run-up to the 2012 parliamentary elections" Svoboda had revised its electoral program eliminating "rightwing extremist statements" and insisting that, in his telephone conversation with Tiahnybok on April 29, the German ambassador had underlined that "anti-Semitic remarks are unacceptable from the German viewpoint."[7] But Svoboda's program is still unambiguous. For example, the party demands that all media organs spreading "anti-Ukrainian propaganda" have their licenses revoked. The parliamentarian Ihor Miroshnychenko used precisely this argument to justify his attack on NTU's director. According to its electoral program, Svoboda seeks to outlaw "any display of Ukrainophobia" and ban "sexual perversion" - referring also to homosexuality. The party calls for a "state program of patriotic education and hardening the nature of the young generation" and promotes "patriotic organizations." "Patriotism" would be defined by Svoboda's view of history: It plans to declare the crimes of the Nazi UPA and of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalist (OUN) collaborators a "national liberation struggle" and wants to give UPA veterans "proper privileges," and declare October 14, the day the UPA was founded, a "national holiday" - the "Day of Ukrainian Weaponry."[8]

"Gone Wrong More than Once"
When on February 20, the German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (SPD) appeared in public at the side of Svoboda leader Oleh Tiahnybok, he lent that party social respectability as an acceptable cooperation partner. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[9]) A few days ago, former EU-Commissioner, Günter Verheugen (SPD), was unambiguous in his views concerning Svoboda. It is a fatal "violation of a taboo" to accept "real fascists in a government," Verheugen declared: "Integrating radical forces, has gone terribly wrong more than once in European history. This should not be forgotten."[10]

More reports and background information on the current German policy in reference to the Ukraine can be found here: Problems of Eastward Expansion, A Broad-Based Anti-Russian Alliance, Expansive Ambitions, Our Man in Kiev, Integration Rivalry with Moscow, On the Offensive, At all Costs, The Crimean Conflict, The Kiev Escalation Strategy, Cold War Images and The Free World.
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58732

From VoltaireNet:

Quote:

The new Cold War "shield"

by Manlio Dinucci

Washington is making hay of its defeat in Ukraine: it is getting the Europeans to cut themselves off economically from Russia and is already imposing on them the expansion of its missile coverage. While the Western media focus on NATO's narrative of events (the so-called "military annexation" of Crimea), the Alliance is noiselessly deploying its imperial apparatus.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | ROME (ITALY) | 22 MARCH 2014 FRANÇAIS ITALIANO ESPAÑOL РУССКИЙ PORTUGUÊS DEUTSCH

Vice President Joe Biden's flash visit to Poland and Estonia to ensure that, in the face of "Russia's shameless incursion" in Ukraine - a country determined to build "a government for the people" (guaranteed by the neo-Nazis [1] brought to power by the "new Gladio" coup [2] ) - the United States reiterates its unwavering commitment to comply with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty on "collective defense." As Ukraine is now a de facto, but not official, member of NATO, there is always "non-Article 5," urging members to "execute evolving missions not described under Article 5," which was promoted by the Italian government of Massimo D'Alema during the NATO war on Yugoslavia in 1999, and later also applied to the wars on Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.To help "NATO emerge from this crisis stronger ... than ever'," the United States repledged its commitment to the "missile defense" of Europe. However, by correlating the "missile defense" to the Ukrainian crisis, Joe Biden gave his game away. Washington had persistently maintained that the U.S. "shield" in Europe is not directed against Russia, but against the threat of Iranian missiles. In Moscow, on the contrary, this was always perceived as an attempt to gain a decisive strategic advantage over Russia: the U.S. could hold it under the threat of a nuclear first strike, relying on the ability of the "shield" to neutralize the retaliation effects [3] The new plan launched by President Obama, compared with the previous one, provides for a larger number of missiles lined up on Russia's doorstep. Since they are under U.S. control, no one can find out whether they are interceptors or nuclear missiles.Having rejected the proposal to jointly manage with Russia the Gabala radar station in Azerbaijan, the United States began building in Poland the site that will host 24 Aegis system SM-3 missiles. In addition, the Polish government has pledged to lay out more than 30 billion euros to achieve (with U.S. technologies) their own "shield" aimed to be integrated into the U.S. and NATO structure. And Joe Biden applauded Poland for its willingness to take on "part of the financial burden, something that all allies should do" (Italy is on notice). Another 24 SM-3 missile site, currently under construction at the Deveselu airbase in Romania, will become operational in 2015 and will be manned by 500 U.S. soldiers. These missile facilities comprise a super-powerful radar installed in Turkey and mobile radars that can be quickly deployed to "advanced positions."The "shield" also includes the deployment in the Mediterranean of warships equipped with Aegis radars and SM- 3 missiles. The first one - guided missile destroyerUSS Donald Cook - arrived in early February at the Rota Naval Base in Spain, where 1,200 sailors and 1,600 members of their families will eventually be housed. It will be followed by three other units (USS Ross, USS Porter andUSS Carney). But it is likely that the number will be higher as the U.S. Navy already has about 30 such vessels. They continually patrol the Mediterranean, ready at any moment to spring into action, conducting at the same time, according to NATO, "a full range of maritime security operations and bilateral and multilateral exercises with allied navies." The Spanish Navy already has ​​four frigates equipped with the Aegis integrated combat system, which renders them inter-operational with U.S. ships. The same thing will be done with the Fremm frigates of the Italian Navy.An increasingly important role in the "shield" will be played by the commandments and the U.S. and NATO bases in Italy: in Naples, home to the headquarters of U.S. and allied naval forces; in Sicily, where the Sigonella Naval Air Station is located (which will service the Aegis units in the Mediterranean) in addition to the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) at Niscemi [4] for high frequency satellite communications. All Aegis naval units in the Mediterranean, again according to NATO, will be "under U.S. command and control." This means that the decision to launch the interceptor missile, or so presumed, will be the exclusive prerogative of the Pentagon.While preparing the "shield", the U.S. is sharpening its knives. For the Ukrainian crisis, they have deployed 12 more F-16 fighter-bombers in Poland and another 10 F-15 in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They will shortly be able to transport the new B61-12 nuclear bombs stored in Europe (including Italy), to be used as anti-bunker bombs. Moscow is taking counter-measures, but Washington has scored the first point: the mounting tension in Europe enables the U.S. to increase its influence over its European allies.With Article 5 or non-Article 5.

The neo-nazis of the Ukraine are appearing to be useful idiots who have outlasted their usefulness.

Quote:(There was no time yet to read through all your comments on yesterday's thread so I am not sure how much of this has been mentioned yet.)

The fascist defense minister Tenyukh, who wanted to start a war with Russia, is probably being dismissed today by the Ukrainian rump-parliament. The provisional president designated one Mykhailo Koval as acting minister of defense. But Reuters reports that Tenyukh himself asked to be dismissed and that the parliament lacked the votes to accept it. Other claims differ. I have not yet found the reasons for this move. Was it because Tenyukh wanted to start a war or because he did not manage to do so? Or was it the fact that about 80% of the Ukrainian troops on Crimea defied his orders and decided to move over to the Russian side?

In other news one of the most dangerous leaders of the Pravyh Sektor, the muscle paramilitary side of the fascists in Ukraine, was shot down and killed near the west-Ukrainian city of Rivne. It is unclear who killed him and why. According to the (anti-Putin) Moscow Times:

Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Doniy said on his Facebook page that unknown assailants blocked off Muzychko's car, dragged him out of the vehicle, cuffed his hands behind his back, and shot him twice in the chest. Vse and another Rivne website, ChaRivne, said that townspeople believed that Muzychko had been gunned down by a "Russian subversive group."
...
"Those who killed him made sure that he was not wearing a bulletproof vest and then shot him in the heart," Right Sector activist Yaroslav Hranitskiy said, ChaRivne reported.
Muzychko earlier this month accused the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office and police of planning to kill him or capture and hand him over to Russia.
"I am not afraid of death," he said in a YouTube video. He said his "friends, brothers, patriots" would "continue the battle."

Voice of Russia as well as Associated Press report that Oleksandr Muzychko was killed by Ukrainian police forces:

Ukraine's Interior Ministry says a prominent member of a radical nationalist movement in Ukraine that played a key role in recent anti-government demonstrations was killed during a police operation to detain him.
...
Police say Muzychko was sought for organized crime links, hooliganism and for threatening public officials. The Interior Ministry said Tuesday that Muzychko was shot dead after opening fire on police.

Muzychko was an embarrassment for the government. The allegation that the February 21 coup in Kiev was executed by mostly fascist forces is based on the roles that Tenyukh, Muzychko and others played in it. Removing them now may be an attempt to clean the image of the putschists.

I find the following statement by Obama, more than slightly bizarre.

It's the equivalent of nation state dick measuring?

Why does he fell the need to state the obvious that Putin clearly already knows? Is it just shock that any nation state in the world dares do something against the wishes of the US - a "how dare they!" knee-jerk reflection? Or, perhaps, the fear that others might well consider following suit - reflecting the slow loss of the death-grip the US exerts on the world?

Quote:'Russia cannot hope to match global might of America,' says Barack Obama in warning to Vladimir Putin



CHARLOTTE MCDONALD-GIBSON

THE HAGUE

Wednesday 26 March 2014

The US President, Barack Obama, has issued a warning to Russia's Vladimir Putin to keep his troops out of Ukraine or face even tougher sanctions, calling Russia a "regional power" which would struggle to compete with America's global influence.

So far, Washington and the European Union (EU) have responded to President Putin's annexation of Crimea this month with sanctions on dozens of individuals, most of them directly linked to Mr Putin's actions in Crimea after his ally Viktor Yanukovych was ousted by protesters in Kiev.
Those diplomatic moves have so far had little effect in Moscow, and Western leaders have faced criticism that they are not being tough enough in the face of a more muscular Russia.
Mr Obama appeared to meet such criticism by making clear that the US is "the most powerful nation in the world" and one that other countries looked to in order to take the lead on global crises such as the conflict in Syria. Asked at a nuclear-security conference in The Hague whether Russia was now Washington's top geopolitical foe, he replied: "America's got a whole lot of challenges." But Russia, he added, "is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbours, not out of strength but out of weakness. We [the US] have considerable influence on our neighbours. We generally don't need to invade them in order to have a strong co-operative relationship with them."
Both Washington and the EU have recently intensified their warnings that they will not hesitate to impose tougher and broader economic sanctions if Russia does not de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine or makes any attempt to move its troops beyond Crimea and into eastern or western Ukraine.
The Nato Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said he was "very much concerned" about a build-up of Russian troops along Ukraine's borders. Mr Obama said that Russia "has a right legally to have troops on its own soil" but warned against any further action.
"We also are concerned about further encroachment by Russia into Ukraine," Mr Obama said. "I think that will be a bad choice for President Putin to make."
If the situation deteriorated, Mr Obama said the US would be ready and willing to impose sanctions on sectors including energy, arms, financial services and trade, even if there would be an impact on the rest of the world. Europe has close economic ties to Russia, and its punitive measures against Russia have been tempered by caution over potential knock-on effects of sanctions.
Mr Obama stressed that any sanctions "will have the greatest impact on Russia", a sentiment echoed by the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, who was hosting the nuclear-security summit.
"Obviously, you can never guarantee that the people in Europe, in Canada, in the US, would not be hurt," Mr Rutte said. "But obviously, we will make sure that we will design these sanctions in such a way that they will have maximum impact on the Russian economy and not on the European, the Canadian, the Japanese or the American economy."
On Monday, the leaders of the US, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Canada suspended Russia from the G8 group of nations and cancelled a meeting of the group in the Russian city of Sochi in June. They will instead meet as G7 in Brussels.
While the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, was initially dismissive of the move, the Kremlin said it was keen to maintain diplomatic contacts. "The Russian side continues to be ready to have such contacts at all levels, including the top level," Mr Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told Interfax news agency.

The CIA game plan appears to be the familiar one from Iraq, Libya et al: destroy any semblance of a central government & plunge the target country - in this instance, the rump Ukraine - into a superficially multi-faceted civil war (with Langley, via cut-outs and proxies, pulling the strings of all the competing factions).

The major difference here is the intention to compel the Russians to intervene to protect those in the south and east of the country for whom Moscow is the capital of choice.

Was the first shot of the upcoming Ukrainian civil war just fired?

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.uk/2014...inian.html

Quote:There are pretty good signs that the shots which killed Aleksandr Muzychko might turn out to be the first ones of the upcoming civil war.

So far, what happened was not a civil war, but a armed insurrection followed by a coup, a revolution for sure, but not a civil war. What is beginning to take place now is very different. Consider this:

1) There are now four very different forces in the Ukraine:
the US/EU run oligarchs (Timoshenko, Iatseniuk, etc)
the US funded but probably not really controlled neo-Nazi crazies (Tiagnibok and Right Sector
the local mobsters pretending to be revolutionaries
the Russian speakers
This makes for a very dangerous and volatile combination

2) There are numerous reports of assaults, lynchings, pogroms, murders, intimidations and robberies all over the Ukraine. Some are committed by the neo-Nazis, some by mobsters pretending to act in the name of the revolution. The population is very fearful not only for its future, but even for its present.

3) The state, or what remains of it, is clearly controlled by the oligarchs, but there is very little it can do since the only instrument of power which it controls is the SBU, the Ukrainian state security, which is phenomenally corrupt, whose best cadre have left a long time ago and which is basically taking orders from the CIA. There are also some police forces (special SWAT teams, cops from the western Ukraine), but they are few in numbers. They can kidnap this or that Russian-speaker or kill some individual (like Muzychko), but they cannot fight the neo-Nazis or mobsters.

4) The Ukrainian military basically exists only on paper. Most officers are either resigning or trying to join the Russian military. Many of its weapons depots have been looted, and morale is at rock bottom. Potentially, the Ukrainian officer corps could be used to crack down on the neo-Nazis and mobsters, but only if they could be convinced that sane people are back in command.

5) The economy - which was already close to death - is degrading at phenomenal speed and absolutely nobody has any plan to resurrect it.

6) The state's policy current is clear: to crack down on the neo-Nazis with brute force and to discredit the Freedom Party politically. This policy has a very small chance of being successful. Think of the Right Sector and the Freedom Party as the "Ukrainian Taliban" and you will immediately see why the state simply does not have the means to crush them.

7) The other key tactic of the state is a major cover-up of the true state of affairs. This is the real reason why all the Russian TV channels have been basically banned in the Ukraine: Russian TV channels are more than happy to report about all the economic problems, security situation, tensions, etc which the state is desperately trying to cover up. And since the western corporate media is as loyal to the USA as the Ukrainian one is to the regime - the revolutionary regime hopes that by cutting off the info from Russia it will be able to hide the real situation from the general public.

8) The upcoming (in May) presidential elections are going to head for disaster in one way or another: there is simply no way, no way at all, that the current regime would - or even could - organize even minimally decent elections. They cannot let Milkail Dobkin run or, if they do, they would have to dramatically "correct" the number of votes he will get. They probably cannot let Iarosh run either. Dobkin, being under house arrest, could not run a normal campaign either way, as for Iarosh, he might be the next to be assassinated by the SBU/cops. No matter what the modalities or he outcome, the next presidential elections will be a farce which most people will simply not accept. The resulting "President" and government will have zero legitimacy.

9) The revolutionary regime is also completely out of touch with reality. Instead of seriously dealing with the immense problems facing the Ukraine, they are busying themselves with nonsense like issuing a search warrant for the (very cute) new Chief Prosecutor of Crimea Natalia Poklonskaia.

10) Last, but not least, there is already overwhelming evidence that the revolutionary regime is lying about the circumstances of the death of Aleksandr Muzychko who appears to have been executed by a special SWAT unit. The order to kill him apparently was given or, at least, approved, by the CIA station in Kiev who, according to many reports, is basically running the revolutionary government from the 4th floor of a building in central Kiev.

Now, I fully understand the reasons for the order to execute Muzychko: it gets rid of a armed and protected psychopathic murderer whose antics have been embarrassing the new revolutionary regime. It also triggers a crisis between the pro-US oligarchs and the neo-Nazis which would allow the former to try to get rid of the latter in the name of "democracy" and "anti-Fascism", hence something which would not only be applauded with both hands in the West, but also give the oligarchs some anti-Nazi credentials and thus help to erase from the collective memory of the TV-zombified morons the fact that this regime only came to power thanks to the violence meted out by these neo-Nazis.

It is in many ways uncanny how much the situation today resembles the absolute chaos which took place in the Ukraine in 1918-1920 when many different factions fought each other, several foreign countries intervened in one way or another, total chaos and anarchy reigned over much of the country while politicians made ridiculous promises (for those who know little about this period, just read the Wikipedia entry under "Nestor Makhno"). Eventually, the situation was "solved", if one can use that word in this context, by the invasion of the Ukraine by the Red Army, a catastrophic war against Poland, Bolshevik terror and WWII. In other words, 2 years of total chaos turned into 25 years of horror and immense suffering for the Ukrainian people. That precedent is, indeed, very, very scary.

The good news is, of course, that there is no Red Army today. The bad news is that the Russian military does no want to intervene in the Ukraine. At the very best, the Kremlin might be forced to move the Russian military into eastern and, possibly, southern Ukraine to protect Russian-speakers from the violence resulting from a breakup of the Ukraine, but that would be an option of last resort as the Kremlin fully understands that the imbeciles in charge of the major powers in the West could do something truly stupid in reaction to such a Russian move. Thus, from the Russian point of view the best solution is by far, and I have said that many times here, to have a more or less stable, more or less prosperous, more or less "not anti-Russian" and independent Ukraine as a good neighbor.

When Putin told the Russian Federal Assembly and the rest of the world in his historical speech that Russia did not want to occupy or annex the Ukraine, he was not lying to cover up an imminent invasion, or trying to appease the West or showing how generous and good the Russians are - he was stating a basic reality of Russian pragmatic self-interest: Russia neither needs nor wants the Ukraine, especially now that it got Crimea back. What Russia does not want is a neo-Nazi Ukraine with NATO bases.

So if the Empire's leaders had any common sense at all, they would understand the basic truth that this is not a zero-sum game and that Russia's interests are quite compatible to the West's as long as the West gives up its crazy idea of setting a neo-Nazi regime in Kiev surrounded by NATO bases. That crazy shit Russia simply will not accept. But an independent Ukraine?! Of course - please, they will even help pay for it as long as it avoids a much more dangerous outcome resulting in a civil war.

Alas, all the signs are that Obama and his EU minions are just not going to accept anything short of a total victory - thereby securing their own total defeat, but at the cost of a complete destruction of rump-Ukraine and a horrible predicament for the people of the Ukraine. Just look at what these politicians did with Iraq or Libya! The AngloZionist logic is simple: what I cannot get - I burn down.

Short of a miraculous change of mind of the AngloZionist plutocracy, the bullets that killed Muzychko might well have been the (CIA's) match which will start a fire capable of burning down what is left of the Ukraine.

The Saker
POSTED BY VINEYARDSAKER: AT 13:16

Actually, the case that there will be war. From Phil Rigby's post, the Saker writes:

Quote:Alas, all the signs are that Obama and his EU minions are just not going to accept anything short of a total victory - thereby securing their own total defeat, but at the cost of a complete destruction of rump-Ukraine and a horrible predicament for the people of the Ukraine. Just look at what these politicians did with Iraq or Libya! The AngloZionist logic is simple: what I cannot get - I burn down.

With calls for Obama to put Putin in his place, he as sniffed that Russia is a regional power that can never stand up to the military might of the US. There is an eerie sense of confidence about all this. If The Saker says the Ukraine is not over, then where? He indicates civil war. It might get a lot worse.

But who's to say the our zen-state president knows more about where they want to take this. Wikispooks reminds us that the history of the color revolutions is that may seem chaotic, but in fact they have been carefully gamed. They knew full well that Putin would somehow take the Crimea, even though he would prefer not to. Score one for the blue team. But wait, it gets worse.

Professor Francis Boyle has this to say:
Another tactic of the US/NATO/Ukraine front will be to carry out terror campaigns to force Russia to annex more land. Score two for the blue team. And so they should be confident. They are the blue team; the good guys; no one can touch them. They can project power like no other country on earth.

The red team is Russia, merely a regional power. Ultimately, the have to know their fate. Resistance is futile. Assimilate. The fly in the ointment is that this mere regional power has several thousand nuclear warheads.

Pat Lang has a resume that any military man would love to have beginning with his days in Viet Nam. He has been analyzing the Ukrainian situation for weeks. In his blog, he says this to a responder who doubts there is much risk involved and that Putin needs to be taught a lesson.

Quote:To return to the matter immediately at hand, you believe that there could be a conventional engagement in Ukraine between NATO forces and those of Russia without an escalation to nuclear weapons? If you do believe that I have to tell you that all planning in the Cold War contingency of a Soviet offensive into Germany expected that if one side seemed likely to be defeated such an escalation was all but inevitable.

A scenario straight from hell. An arrogant super-power, a relaxed confident president who has found out he rather enjoys killing people, pushing a very powerful nation right to the edge with every indication it intends to win.

Watch this if you don't believe that things can spiral out of control. Here is a story of a single man who stopped a likely nuclear holocaust.

Another interesting essay from VoltaireNet:

Quote:

Is Crimea's Shift the First of a Long Series ?

by Thierry Meyssan

Beyond the emphatic cries of the West against the accession of the Crimea to the Russian Federation, the real issue is whether this is an orphan event or whether it foreshadows a turning of Eastern Europe toward Moscow. With only enslavement to the Brussels bureaucracy to offer, Brussels fears that its current clients may be attracted by Moscow's freedom and money.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS | 24 MARCH 2014

Scene of jubilation in Semferopol upon Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.

Westerners bellow to denounce the "military annexation" of the Crimea by Russia. According to them, Moscow, returning to the "Brezhnev doctrine" threatens the sovereignty of all States which were members not only of the former Soviet Union, but also of the Warsaw Pact, and is about to invade as it did in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.Is this true ? Obviously, the same Westerners are not convinced of the imminent danger. Though they equate the "annexation" of the Crimea by Vladimir Putin to that of the Sudetenland by Adolf Hitler, they do not think that we are heading towards a Third World War.At most, they have enacted ​​theoretical sanctions against some Russian leaders - including Crimean leaders - blocking their accounts in case they should wish to open such in Western banks, or prohibiting them from traveling there, in case they yearned to do so. True, the Pentagon has sent 22 fighter jets to Poland and the Baltic States, but it does not intend to do more than this posturing for the moment.What exactly is happening ? Since the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989 and the Malta summit that followed on December 2 and 3, the United States has steadily gained ground, and in violation of their promises, have absorbed all Eastern European states - except Russia - into NATO. The process began a few days later, on Christmas 1989, with the overthrow of Ceausescu in Romania and his replacement by another communist dignitary suddenly converted to liberalism : Ion Iliescu. For the first time, the CIA organized a coup in broad daylight, while staging it as a "revolution" thanks to a new television channel, CNN International. This was the beginning of a long series.Twenty other targets would follow, often by equally fraudulent means : Albania, East Germany , Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina , Bulgaria , Croatia , Estonia , Georgia , Hungary , Kosovo , Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova , Montenegro , Poland , Serbia , Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic and Ukraine.No document was signed at the summit in Malta, but President Bush Sr. , advised by Condoleezza Rice, took the oral commitment that no member of the Warsaw Pact would be accepted into NATO. In reality, East Germany was de facto accepted, by its simple accession to West Germany. And the door being open, now 12 former USSR and Warsaw Pact member states acceded and others have been waiting to join the Alliance.However, "all good things come to an end." The power of NATO and its civil side, the European Union, is faltering. While the Alliance has never been so numerous , its armies are ineffective. It excels in small theaters of operation, such as Afghanistan, but can not go to war against China, or against Russia, without the certainty of losing as we have seen in Syria this summer.Ultimately, Westerners are amazed at Russian speed and efficiency. During the Olympic Games in Sochi, Putin stoically uttered no comment on Maidan events. But he reacted when his hands were free. Everyone could see him playing cards he had prepared during his long silence. Within hours, the pro- Russian forces neutralized the pro-Kiev Crimea forces while a revolution was organized in Semferopol to bring to power a pro-Russian team. The new government called for a referendum on self-determination which saw a huge pro-Russian wave, Tatar population included. Then the official Russian forces captured the soldiers still loyal to Kiev with their equipment. All this without firing a shot, with the exception of a pro-NATO Ukrainian sniper who was arrested in Semferopol after killing a person from each side.Twenty years ago, the same Crimeans would certainly have voted against Russia. But today, freedom is better provided by Moscow than by Kiev, where a third of the government has gone back to the Nazis and the other two thirds to the representatives of the oligarchs. In addition, their bankrupt economy was immediately underwritten by the Bank of Russia, while, despite the IMF and loans from the U.S. and EU, Kiev is sentenced to a long period of poverty. It was not necessary to speak Russian to make that choice and, despite Western propaganda, Muslim Tatars did so as well as Russian speakers. This is also the choice of 88 % of Ukrainian troops stationed in the Crimea, who rallied with Moscow with the intention of bringing their families and getting their Russian citizenship. It is also the choice of 82 % of Ukrainian sailors who were at sea, too happy to be Russians, they rallied to Moscow with their ships without being forced in any way.Freedom and prosperity that were selling in the West for almost 70 years, have changed sides.This is not to say that Russia is perfect, but to note that for Crimeans and in reality for most Europeans, it is more attractive than the Western camp.That is why the independence of the Crimea and its accession to the Russian Federation marked the return of the pendulum. For the first time, an ex-Soviet people freely decided to recognize the authority of Moscow. What Westerners fear is that this event is comparable to the fall of the Berlin Wall in effect, but in the other direction. Why would we not see among the member states of NATO -like Greece - or simply in the European Union like Cyprus some that would follow the same path ? The Western camp would then disagregate and sink into a very deep recession - like Yeltsin's Russia -.In addition, the question of the survival of the United States would inevitably arise. The dissolution of the USSR should have caused that of its enemy and nonetheless partner, however, these two superpowers existing only to face one another. But it did not happen. Washington, being deprived of its competitor, launched into world conquest, globalized the economy and installed a new order. It took two years and one month for the Soviet Union to dissolve after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Will we soon see the dissolution of the United States and the European Union into several entities, as theorized by Igor Panarin of the Diplomatic Academy in Moscow ? The collapse would be even faster as Washington reduced its subsidies to its allies and its Brussels Structural Funds.Nobody should fear the attractiveness of Russia, because it is an imperial power but not imperialist. If Moscow tends to snub small countries it protects, it does not intend to extend its hegemony by force. Its military strategy is the "denial of access" to its territory. Its armies are the first in the world in terms of anti-aircraft and anti-ship defense. They can destroy fleets of bombers and aircraft carriers. But they are not equipped to set out to conquer the world, or deployed in quantities of external bases.It is particularly strange to hear Westerners denounce membership of Crimea to Russia as contrary to international law and the Constitution of Ukraine. Is it not they who dismembered the USSR and the Warsaw Pact ? Is it not they who broke the constitutional order in Kiev ?German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, deplores alleged Russian will to "cut Europe in two." But Russia got rid of the Soviet bureaucratic dictatorship and does not intend to restore the Iron Curtain. It is the United States who wants to cut Europe in two to avoid hemoraging to the east. The new bureaucratic dictatorship is not in Moscow but in Brussels, it is called the European Union.Henceforth, Washington is trying to bind its allies to its camp. It extends its missile cover to Poland, Romania and Azerbaijan. It is no longer a mystery that its "shield" was never intended to counter Iranian missiles, but is designed to attack Russia. It also tries to push its European allies to take economic sanctions that would cripple the continent and would push capital to flee... to the United States .The magnitude of these adjustments is such that the Pentagon is examining the possibility of interrupting its "pivot to the Far East", that is to say, the movement of its troops from Europe and the Middle East to position them for a war against China. Anyway, any change in its long-term strategy will disrupt its armies even in the short and medium term. Moscow did not ask for as much, and voluptuously observes the reactions of populations of eastern Ukraine and, why not, Transnistria.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Roger Lagassé

Source
Al-Watan (Syria)

March 30, 2014

Ukraine - New Propaganda Meme: Fascists Are Russian Tools

http://www.moonofalabama.org/

The Right Sektor, the Ukrainian fascist paramilitary group, was the main organization which brutally fought against the riot police on Maidan square. On February 20, after an agreement was signed between president Janukovich and three opposition leaders, the police withdrew. But the Right Sektor did not want to stick to the agreement:

Quote:A deal aimed at ending a lethal spiral of violence in Ukraine began to show serious strains late Friday just hours after it had been signed, with angry protesters shouting down opposition members of Parliament who negotiated the accord and a militant leader threatening armed attacks if President Viktor F. Yanukovych did not step down by morning.

Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of Right Sector, a coalition of hard-line nationalist groups, reacted defiantly to news of the settlement, drawing more cheers from the crowd.

"The agreements that were reached do not correspond to our aspirations," he said. "Right Sector will not lay down arms. Right Sector will not lift the blockade of a single administrative building until our main demand is met the resignation of Yanukovych."

The brutes immediately marched to the parliament, broke in and physically pressed the parliamentarians, those who had not fled, to replace the president.

Yanukovich, members of his party of regions and parliamentarians of the communist party had to flee. The headquarter of the communist party was stormed by the Right Sektor and turned into their headquarter. As the Estonian foreign minister reported to the EU high representative Ashton parliamentarians were beaten right in front of the building. A rump parliament voted to impeach Yanukovich but did not have the required 3/4th of all votes. An illegal government was installed. The U.S. and the EU immediately recognized it even though it had come to pass disregarding the constitution and under physical pressure from the fascist.

Anyone who pointed out that this fascist led coup was illegal and a dangerous precedence was denigrated as a Russian propagandist.

A month later special police force killed one of the Right Sektor leaders, the wanted criminal Oleksandr Muzychko. Right Sektor fighters responded by laying siege on the parliament demanding that the interior minister step down. Now the EU is suddenly concerned and Ashton released a statement:

Quote:I strongly condemn the pressure by activists of the Right Sector who have surrounded the building of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Such an intimidation of the parliament is against the democratic principles and rule of law.

Isn't Ashton a fine hypocrite? A month ago these people were driving the putsch and the U.S. and the EU lauded the violence they used as "peaceful" while condemning the rather passive police force. Now such violence is suddenly against the "rule of law". What a joke.

But even worse. Now the Right Sektor fascists are revealed to be Russian agents:

Quote:"At a parliament session on Friday, Mr Turchynov, called the Right Sector rally outside parliament "an attempt to destabilise the situation in Ukraine, in the very heart of Ukraine - Kiev. That is precisely the task that the Russian Federation's political leadership is giving to its special services".

The propagandists in Washington agree. The head of the Brookings institute, Strobe Talbot, joined the conspiracy theorists:

Quote:.@billmon1 - some of those thugs are funded by Russia for sure, but as you say, they wouldn't want their cover blown.

Now, after over 70 years of cooperation between the U.S. government and eastern European fascists to further U.S. imperial goals, Washington DC insiders believe that those are Russian tools? These folks certainly smoke some rather strong stuff.

Meanwhile the Russian foreign minister Lavrov is meeting U.S. secretary of state Kerry today. In a recent TV interview Lavrov again explained that decentralization and federalization of Ukraine is the only possible solution for the country. Two weeks ago Kerry had already agreed to the need of decentralization and constitutional changes but the implementation was delayed over U.S. grandstanding about the reunion of Crimea and Russia. But that has now been somewhat accepted as inevitable. U.S. propaganda about alleged Russian troop concentrations on the Ukrainian border turned out to be nonsense. There are no more troops there than normally stationed on the Crimea and along the long Russian Ukrainian border.

The Russian solution for the Ukraine is now back on the table and one can hope that the U.S. will now help to implemented it. This might be a bit more difficult now as the leading contender for presidential elections, chocolate oligarch Petro Olekseyevich Poroshenko, rejects federalization:

Quote:"Mr. Poroshenko, for all his moderate leanings, flatly rejected Russia's proposal for the federalization of Ukraine as allowing "somebody in the Russian government trying to tell us what type of governmental system we should have."

If the U.S. wants to it can surely pressure Poroshenko to get its will implemented. Ignoring the Russian opinion on Ukraine will not solve any problem but would rather lead to new upheavals.