Magda Hassan Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:A snippet from Pepe Escobar:

What was that guy's name? Yah. Preparata. Guido Preparata.

Yep. That's the one. And goes back to Halford Mackinder. Earliet perhaps.

Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine - now Russia is ready for war

Quote:Something absolutely huge has just happened in Russia: the Russian Council of the Federation, the equivalent of the US Senate, has just UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution allowing Putin to use Russian armed forces in the Ukraine, something the Duma had requested earlier. Before the vote took place, Russian senators said that Obama had threatened Russia, insulted the Russian people and that they demanded that Putin recall the Russian ambassador to the USA. I have never seen such a level of outrage and even rage in Russia as right now.

I hope and pray that Obama, and his advisers, stop and think carefully about their next step because make no mistake about that RUSSIA IS READY FOR WAR.

Now, the resolution of the Council of the Federation does not, repeat, NOT, mean that Russian forces will move into the Ukraine. Key Russian politicians have already spoken out and clarified that all this did was give the authority to Putin to use the armed forces, but that he was free to decide on whether this was needed or not.

Yet, this is a warning which should not be taken lightly. The way I see it, it not only means that Russia will act to protect Crimea, but that there is a real possibility that Russia could even use its armed forces elsewhere in the Ukraine and this is a huge development.

In the past days I have listened to many Russian experts, lots of talkshows, political statements, etc. and I was amazed by the fact that nobody even suggested that Russia should intervene militarily. Everybody agreed that Russia should support the Russian speakers in the Ukraine politically, financially, and morally. But nobody mentioned the use of force. So what happened since?

1) some kind of attack on Crimea overnight
and
2) Obama's absolutely imbecile and reckless threats against Russia

And this combination really set things off. Now, every single political party in the Council of the Federation and every single representative have voted to allow the use of Russian armed force. That would be the equivalent of the US President getting each member of the House and the Senate to vote to allow him to wage war.

I need to make something else clear here: no amounts of threats will stop the Kremlin now, all that will achieve is to get even more of the public reaction of support for Putin. And if some wannabe Napoleon or Hitler decided to try to use military forces against Russia the latter will go to war, no matter who is standing against it.

The USA and the EU have to realize that they dangerously overplayed their hand in the Ukraine: they have used neo-Nazis to overthrow a totally corrupt and incompetent President, but a legitimate one, in the process they have wrecked the Ukrainian state apparatus, by allowing so much wanton violence and racist slogans they have totally freaked out the eastern and southern Ukraine, and by either conducting or allowing an attack on Crimea they have threatened the Russian population and the Black Sea Fleet. That is yet another absolute and TOTAL DISASTER of the Obama Presidency. This man is as dishonest, as he is mediocre, arrogant and reckless and I hope and pray that the US Joint Chiefs are going to have a "frank exchange of views" with him as soon as possible. In an ideal world, the Congress should have impeached that despicable loser, but since they are even worse then him, it is for the JCS to act.

The Russians are united, they are really angry and they know that they have the military strength to defend their country and their people in the near abroad. I don't recommend anybody doubt their resolve because if Russia is attacked its response will be devastating: think 08.08.08 but on a vast scale.

I think that a disaster can, and will, be avoided. I even hope that the Russian military will not move into the Ukraine, but the US has to rein in both the insurgency government and the Fascists in the streets and tell them all to "cool it". The next necessary step is to spot the nationalists from trying to seize further buildings in the east and southern Ukraine. Last, but not least, the USA and Russia should get together to strike some deal which would allow the Ukraine to formally survive as a unitary state, but make it a de-facto confederation with a purely symbolic presidency.

The leaders of the USA and the EU have to now understand that they are playing with fire and that this is not a "Ukrainian" problem: now they themselves are at risk of ending up in a war against Russia, possibly a nuclear one. And even if they never admit to that publicly, they need to at least have to courage to admit to themselves that they themselves created that situation and that the responsibility for it is fully theirs.

The Saker

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Magda Hassan Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:A snippet from Pepe Escobar:

What was that guy's name? Yah. Preparata. Guido Preparata.

Yep. That's the one. And goes back to Halford Mackinder. Earliet perhaps.

Do we sense movement in some long frozen tectonic plates?

• Ewen MacAskill
  
• The Guardian, Wednesday 5 March 2014 19.06 GMT
  

The conversation featuring EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton was posted on YouTube. Photograph: Ye Pingfan/Rex

A leaked phone call between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet has revealed that the two discussed a conspiracy theory that blamed the killing of civilian protesters in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, on the opposition rather than the ousted government.
The 11-minute conversation was posted on YouTube it is the second time in a month that telephone calls between western diplomats discussing Ukraine have been bugged.
In the call, Paet said he had been told snipers responsible for killing police and civilians in Kiev last month were protest movement provocateurs rather than supporters of then-president Viktor Yanukovych. Ashton responds: "I didn't know … Gosh."
The leak came a day after the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said the snipers may have been opposition provocateurs. The Kremlin-funded Russia Today first carried the leaked call online.
The Estonian foreign ministry confirmed the leaked conversation was accurate. It said: "Foreign minister Paet was giving an overview of what he had heard in Kiev and expressed concern over the situation on the ground. We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence." Ashton's office said it did not comment on leaks.
During the conversation, Paet quoted a woman named Olga who the Russian media identified her as Olga Bogomolets, a doctor blaming snipers from the opposition shooting the protesters.
"What was quite disturbing, this same Olga told that, well, all the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides," Paet said.
"So she also showed me some photos, she said that as medical doctor, she can say it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
"So there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition," Paet says.
Ashton replies: "I think we do want to investigate. I didn't pick that up, that's interesting. Gosh," Ashton says.
Russia Today, reporting the call, said: "The snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were allegedly hired by Maidan leaders, according to a leaked phone conversation between the EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign affairs minister, which has emerged online."
Last month, a recording was leaked in which US state department official Victoria Nuland was heard venting the White House's frustrations atEurope's hesitant policy towards pro-democracy protests. Speaking to the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland was heard to say "fuck the EU."
Asked about the emergence of a second embarrassing phonecall, a spokesperson for the US state department said: "As I said around the last unfortunate case, this is just another example of the kind of Russian tradecraft that we have concerns about."

Quote:Unknown snipers played a pivotal role throughout the so-called « Arab Spring Revolutions » yet, in spite of reports of their presence in the mainstream media, surprisingly little attention has been paid to to their purpose and role.

The Russian investigative journalist Nikolay Starikov has written a book which discusses the role of unknown snipers in the destabilization of countries targeted for regime change by the United States and its allies. The following article attempts to elucidate some historical examples of this technique with a view to providing a background within which to understand the current cover war on the people of Syria by death squads in the service of Western intelligence.[1]

Romania 1989
In Susanne Brandstätter's documentary Checkmate: Strategy of a Revolution' aired on Arte television station some years ago, Western intelligence officials revealed how death squads were used to destabilize Romania and turn its people against the head of state Nicolai Ceaucescu.

Brandstätter's film is a must see for anyone interested in how Western intelligence agencies, human rights groups and the corporate press collude in the systematic destruction of countries whose leadership conflicts with the interests of big capital and empire.

Former secret agent with the French secret service, the DGSE(La Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure) Dominique Fonvielle, spoke candidly about the role of Western intelligence operatives in destabilizing the Romanian population.

"how do you organize a revolution? I believe the first step is to locate oppositional forces in a given country. It is sufficient to have a highly developed intelligence service in order to determine which people are credible enough to have influence at their hands to destabilize the people to the disadvantage of the ruling regime"[2]
This open and rare admission of Western sponsorship of terrorism was justified on the grounds of the "greater good" brought to Romania by free-market capitalism. It was necessary, according to the strategists of Romania's "revolution", for some people to die.

Today, Romania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe. A report on Euractiv reads:

"Most Romanians associate the last two decades with a continuous process of impoverishment and deteriorating living standards, according to Romania's Life Quality Research Institute, quoted by the Financiarul daily." [3]

The western intelligence officials interviewed in the documentary also revealed how the Western press played a central role in disinformation. For example, the victims of Western-backed snipers were photographed by presented to the world as evidence of a crazed dictator who was "killing his own people".

To this day, there is a Museum in the back streets of Timisoara Romania which promotes the myth of the "Romanian Revolution". The Arte documentary was one of the rare occasions when the mainstream press revealed some of the dark secrets of Western liberal democracy. The documentary caused a scandal when it was aired in France, with the prestigious Le Monde Diplomatique discussing the moral dilemma of the West's support of terror in its desire to spread democracy'.

Since the destruction of Libya and the ongoing cover war on Syria, Le Monde Diplomatique has stood safely on the side of political correction, condemning Bachar Al Assad for the crimes of the DGSE and the CIA. In its current edition, the front page article reads Ou est la gauche? Where is the left ? Certainly not in the pages of Le Monde Diplomatique !

Russia 1993
During Boris Yeltsin's counter-revolution in Russia in 1993, when the Russian parliament was bombed resulting in the deaths of thousands of people, Yeltsin's counter-revolutionaries made extensive use of snipers. According to many eye witness reports, snipers were seen shooting civilians from the building opposite the US embassy in Moscow. The snipers were attributed to the Soviet government by the international media.[4]

Venezuela 2002
In 2002, the CIA attempted to overthrow Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, in a military coup. On the 11th of April 2002, an opposition March towards the presidential palace was organized by the US backed Venezuelan opposition. Snipers hidden in buildings near the palace opened fire on protestors killing 18. The Venezuelan and international media claimed that Chavez was " killing his own people" thereby justifying the military coup presented as a humanitarian intervention. It was subsequently proved that the coup had been organized by the CIA but the identity of the snipers was never established.

Thailand April 2010
On April 12th 2010, Christian Science Monitor published a detailed report of the riots in Thailand between "red-shirt" activists and the Thai government. The article headline read: Thailand's red shirt protests darken with unknown snipers, parade of coffins'.

Like their counterparts in Tunisia, Thailand's red shirts were calling for the resignation of the Thai prime minister. While a heavy-handed response by the Thai security forces to the protestors was indicated in the report, the government's version of events was also reported:
"Mr. Abhisit has used solemn televised addresses to tell his story. He has blamed rogue gunmen, or "terrorists," for the intense violence (at least 21 people died and 800 were injured) and emphasized the need for a full investigation into the killings of both soldiers and protesters. State television has broadcast repeated images of soldiers coming under fire from bullets and explosives."

The CSM report went on to quote Thai military officials and unnamed Western diplomats:

"military observers say Thai troops stumbled into a trap set by agents provocateurs with military expertise. By pinning down soldiers after dark and sparking chaotic battles with unarmed protesters, the unknown gunmen ensured heavy casualties on both sides.

Some were caught on camera and seen by reporters, including this one. Snipers targeted military ground commanders, indicating a degree of advance planning and knowledge of Army movements, say Western diplomats briefed by Thai officials. While leaders of the demonstrations have disowned the use of firearms and say their struggle is nonviolent, it is unclear whether radicals in the movement knew of the trap.

"You can't claim to be a peaceful political movement and have an arsenal of weapons out the back if needed. You can't have it both ways," says a Western diplomat in regular contact with protest leaders [5]

The CSM article also explores the possibility that the snipers could be rogue elements in the Thai military, agents provocateurs used to justify a crack down on democratic opposition. Thailand's ruling elite is currently coming under pressure from a group called the Red Shirts.[6]

Kyrgystan June 2010
Ethnic violence broke out in the Central Asian republic of Kirgystan in June 2010. It was widely reported that unknown snipers opened fire on members of the Uzbek minority in Kyrgystan. Eurasia.net reports:

"In many Uzbek mahallas, inhabitants offer convincing testimony of gunmen targeting their neighborhoods from vantage points. Men barricaded into the Arygali Niyazov neighborhood, for example, testified to seeing gunmen on the upper floors of a nearby medical institute hostel with a view over the district's narrow streets. They said that during the height of the violence these gunmen were covering attackers and looters, assaulting their area with sniper fire. Men in other Uzbek neighborhoods tell similar stories

. « Among the rumours and unconfirmed reports circulating in Kyrgyzstan after the 2010 violence were claims that water supplies to Uzbek areas were about to be poisoned. Such rumours had also been spread against the Ceaucescu regime in Romania during the CIA- backed coup in 1989. Eurasia.net goes on to claim that:

"Many people are convinced that they've seen foreign mercenaries acting as snipers. These alleged foreign combatants are distinguished by their appearance inhabitants report seeing black snipers and tall, blonde, female snipers from the Baltic states. The idea that English snipers have been roaming the streets of Osh shooting at Uzbeks is also popular. There've been no independent corroborations of such sightings by foreign journalists or representatives of international organizations." [7]

None of these reports have been independently investigated or corroborated. It is therefore impossible to draw any hard conclusions from these stories.

Ethnic violence against Uzbek citizens in Kyrgyzstan occurred pari pasu with a popular revolt against the US-backed regime, which many analysts have attributed to the machinations of Moscow.

The Bakiyev régime came to power in a CIA-backed people-power coup known to the world as the Tulip Revolution in 2005.
Located to the West of China and bordering Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan hosts one of America's biggest and most important military bases in Central Asia, the Manas Air Base, which is vital for the NATO occupation of neighbouring Afghanistan.

Despite initial worries, US/Kyrgyz relations have remained good under the regime of President Roza Otunbayeva. This is not surprising as Otunbayeva had previously participated in the US-created Tulip Revolution in 2004, taking power as foreign minister.

To date no proper investigation has been conducted into the origins of the ethnic violence that spread throughout the south of Kyryzstan in 2010, nor have the marauding gangs of unknown snipers been identified and apprehended.

Given the geostrategic and geopolitical importance of Kyrgyzstan to both the United States and Russia, and the formers track-record of using death squads to divide and weaken countries so as to maintain US domination, US involvement in the dissemination of terrorism in Kyrgyzstan cannot be ruled out. One effective way of maintaining a grip on Central Asian countries would be to exacerbate ethnic tensions.

In August 6th 2008, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that a US arms cache had been found in a house in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, which was being rented by two American citizens. The US embassy claimed the arms were being used for "anti-terrorism" exercises. However, this was not confirmed by Kyrgyz authorities. [8]

Covert US military support to terrorist groups in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia proved to be an effective strategy in creating the conditions for "humanitarian" bombing in 1999. An effective means of keeping the government in Bishkek firmly on America's side would be to insist on a US and European presence in the country to help "protect" the Uzbek minority.

Military intervention similar to that in the former Yugoslavia by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has already been advocated by the New York Times, whose misleading article on the riots on June 24th 2010 has the headline "Kyrgyzstan asks European Security Body for Police Teams". The article is misleading as the headline contradicts the actual report which cites a Kyrgyz official stating:
"A government spokesman said officials had discussed an outside police presence with the O.S.C.E., but said he could not confirm that a request for a deployment had been made."

There is no evidence in the article of any request by the Kyrgyz government for military intervention. In fact, the article presents much evidence to the contrary. However, before the reader has a chance to read the explanation of the Kyrgyz government, the New York Times' writer presents the now all too horribly familiar narrative of oppressed peoples begging the West to come and bomb or occupy their country:
"Ethnic Uzbeks in the south have clamored for international intervention. Many Uzbeks said they were attacked in their neighborhoods not only by civilian mobs, but also by the Kyrgyz military and police officers"[9]

Only towards the end of the article do we find out that the Kyrgyz authorities blamed the US-backed dictator for fomenting ethnic violence in the country, through the use of Islamic jihadists in Uzbekistan. This policy of using ethnic tension to create an environment of fear in order to prop up an extremely unpopular dictatorship, the policy of using Islamic Jihadism as a political tool to create what former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski called " an arc of crisis", ties in well with the history of US involvement in Central Asia from the creation of Al Qaida in Afghanistan in 1978 to the present day.

Again, the question persists, who were the "unknown snipers" terrorizing the Uzbek population, where did their weapons come from and who would benefit from ethnic conflict in Central Asia's geopolitical hotspot?

Tunisia January 2011
On January 16th 2011, CNN reported that 'armed gangs'' were fighting Tunisian security forces. [10] Many of the murders committed throughout the Tunisian uprising were by "unknown snipers". There were also videos posted on the internet showing Swedish nationals detained by Tunisian security forces. The men were clearly armed with sniper rifles. Russia Today aired the dramatic pictures.[11]

In spite of articles by professor Michel Chossudovsky, William Engdahl and others showing how the uprisings in North Africa were following the patterns of US backed people-power coups rather than genuinely popular revolutions, left wing parties and organizations continued to believe the version of events presented to them by Al Jazeera and the mainstream press. Had the left taken a left from old Lenin's book they would have transposed his comments on the February/March revolution in Russia thus:

"The whole course of events in the January/February Revolution clearly shows that the British, French and American embassies, with their agents and "connections",… directly organized a plot.. in conjunction with a section of the generals and army and Tunisian garrison officers, with the express object of deposing Ben Ali"

What the left did not understand is that sometimes it is necessary for imperialism to overthrow some of its clients. A suitable successor to Ben Ali could always be found among the feudalists of the Muslim Brotherhood who now look likely to take power.
In their revolutionary sloganeering and arrogant insistence that the events in Tunisia and Egypt were "spontaneous and popular uprisings" they committed what Lenin identified as the most dangerous sins in a revolution, namely, the substitution of the abstract for the concrete. In other words, left wing groups were simply fooled by the sophistication of the Western backed "Arab Spring" events.

That is why the violence of the demonstrators and in particular the widespread use of snipers possibly linked to Western intelligence was the great unthought of the Tunisian uprising. The same techniques would be used in Libya a few weeks later, forcing the left to back track and modifiy its initial enthusiasm for the CIA's "Arab Spring".

When we are talking about the" left" here, we are referring to genuine left wing parties, that is to say, parties who supported the Great People's Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahirya in their long and brave fight against Western imperialism, not the infantile petty bourgeois dupes who supported NATO's Benghazi terrorists. The blatant idiocy of such a stance should be crystal clear to anyone who understands global politics and class struggle.

Egypt 2011
On October 20th 2011, the Telegraph newspaper published an article entitled, "Our brother died for a better Egypt". According to the Telegraph, Mina Daniel, an anti-government activist in Cairo, had been shot from an unknown sniper, wounding him fatally in the chest"
Inexplicably, the article is no longer available on the Telegraph's website for online perusal. But a google search for Egypt, unknown sniper, Telegraph' clearly shows the above quoted explanation for Mina Daniel's death. So, who could these "unknown snipers'' be?

On February 6th Al Jazeera reported that Egyptian journalist Ahmad Mahmoud was shot by snipers as he attempted to cover classes between Egyptian security forces and protestors. Referring to statements made by Mahmoud's wife Enas Abdel-Alim, the Al Jazeera article insinuates that Mahmoud may have been killed by Egyptian security forces:

"Abdel-Alim said several eyewitnesses told her a uniformed police captain with Egypt's notorious Central Security forces yelled at her husband to stop filming.

Before Mahmoud even had a chance to react, she said, a sniper shot him." [12]

While the Al Jazeera article advances the theory that the snipers were agents of the Mubarak regime, their role in the uprising still remains a mystery. Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based television stations owned by the Emir Hamid Bin Khalifa Al Thani, played a key role in provoking protests in Tunisia and Egypt before launching a campaign of unmitigated pro-NATO war propaganda and lies during the destruction of Libya.

The Qatari channel been a central participant in the current covert war waged by NATO agencies and their clients against the Republic of Syria. Al Jazeera's incessant disinformation against Libya and Syria resulted in the resignation of several prominent journalists such as Beirut station chief Ghassan Bin Jeddo[13] and senior Al Jazeera executive Wadah Khanfar who was forced to resign after a wikileaks cable revealed he was a co-operating with the Central Intelligence Agency.[14]

Many people were killed during the US-backed colour revolution in Egypt. Although, the killings have been attributed to former US semi-client Hosni Mubarak, the involvement of Western intelligence cannot be ruled out. However, it should be pointed out that the role of unknown snipers in mass demonstrations remains complex and multi-faceted and therefore one should not jump to conclusions. For example, after the Bloody Sunday massacre(Domhnach na Fola) in Derry, Ireland 1972, where peaceful demonstrators were shot dead by the British army, British officials claimed that they had come under fire from snipers. But the 30 year long Bloody Sunday inquiry subsequently proved this to be false. But the question persists once more, who were the snipers in Egypt and whose purposes did they serve?

Libya 2011
During the destabilization of Libya, a video was aired by Al Jazeera purporting to show peaceful "pro-democracy" demonstrators being fired upon by "Gaddafi's forces". The video was edited to convince the viewer that anti-Gaddafi demonstrators were being murdered by the security forces. However, the unedited version of the video is available on utube. It clearly shows pro-Gaddafi demonstrators with Green flags being fired upon by unknown snipers. The attribution of NATO-linked crimes to the security forces of the Libyan Jamahirya was a constant feature of the brutal media war waged against the Libyan people. [15]

Syria 2011
The people of Syria have been beset by death squads and snipers since the outbreak of violence there in March. Hundreds of Syrian soldiers and security personnel have been murdered, tortured and mutilated by Salafist and Muslim Brotherhood militants. Yet the international media corporations continue to spread the pathetic lie that the deaths are the result Bachar Al Assad's dictatorship.

When I visited Syria in April of this year, I personally encountered merchants and citizens in Hama who told me they had seen armed terrorists roaming the streets of that once peaceful city, terrorizing the neighbourhood. I recall speaking to a fruit seller in the city of Hama who spoke about the horror he had witnessed that day. As he described the scenes of violence to me, my attention was arrested by a newspaper headline in English from the Washington Post shown on Syrian television: "CIA backs Syrian opposition". The Central Intelligence Agency provides training and funding for groups who do the bidding of US imperialist interests. The history of the CIA shows that backing opposition forces means providing them with arms and finance, actions illegal under international law.

A few days later, while at a hostel in the ancient, cultured city of Aleppo, I spoke to a Syrian business man and his family. The business man ran many hotels in the city and was pro-Assad. He told me that he used to watch Al Jazeera television but now had doubts about their honesty. As we conversed, the Al Jazeera television in the background showed scenes of Syrian soldiers beating and torturing protestors. " Now if that is true, it is simply unacceptable" he said. It is sometimes impossible to verify whether the images shown on television are true or not. Many of the crimes attributed to the Syrian army have been committed by the armed gangs, such as the dumping of mutilated bodies into the river in Hama, presented to the world as more proof of the crimes of the Assad regime.

There is a minority of innocent opponents of the Assad regime who believe everything they see and hear on Al Jazeera and the other pro-Western satellite stations. These people simply do not understand the intricacies of international politics.

But the facts on the ground show that most people in Syria support the government. Syrians have access to all internet websites and international TV channels. They can watch BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, read the New York Times online or Le Monde before tuning into their own state media. In this respect, many Syrians are more informed about international politics than the average European or American. Most Europeans and American believe their own media. Few are capable of reading the Syrian press in original Arabic or watching Syrian television. The Western powers are the masters of discourse, who own the means of communication. The Arab Spring has been the most horrifying example of the wanton abuse of this power.

Disinformation is effective in sowing the seeds of doubt among those who are seduced by Western propaganda. Syrian state media has disproved hundreds of Al Jazeera lies since the beginning of this conflict. Yet the western media has refused to even report the Syrian government's position lest fair coverage of the other side of this story encourage a modicum of critical thought in the public mind.
Conclusion

The use of mercenaries, death squads and snipers by Western intelligence agencies is well documented. No rational government attempting to stay in power would resort to unknown snipers to intimidate its opponents. Shooting at innocent protestors would be counterproductive in the face of unmitigated pressure from Western governments determined to install a client regime in Damascus. Shooting of unarmed protestors is only acceptable in dictatorships that enjoy the unconditional support of Western governments such as Bahrain, Honduras or Colombia.

A government which is so massively supported by the population of Syria would not sabotage its own survival by setting snipers against the protests of a small minority.

The opposition to the Syrian regime is, in fact, miniscule. Tear gas, mass arrests and other non-lethal methods would be perfectly sufficient for a government wishing to control unarmed demonstrators.

Snipers are used to create terror, fear and anti-regime propaganda. They are an integral feature of Western sponsored regime change.
If one were to make a serious criticism of the Syrian government over the past few months, it is that they have failed to implement effective anti-terrorism measures in the country.

The Syrian people want troops on the streets and the roofs of public buildings. In the weeks and months ahead, the Syrian armed forces will probably rely more and more on their Russian military specialists to strengthen the country's defenses as the Western crusade begun in Libya in March spreads to the Levant.

There is no conclusive proof that the snipers murdering men, women and children in Syria are the agents of Western imperialism. But there is overwhelming proof that Western imperialism is attempting to destroy the Syrian state. As in Libya, they have never once mentioned the possibility of negotiations between the so-called opposition and the Syrian government. The West wants regime change and is determined to repeat the slaughter in Libya to achieve this geopolitical objective.

It now looks likely that the cradle of civilization and science will be overrun by semi-literate barbarians as the terminal decline of the West plays itself out in the deserts of the East.

Seven Decades of Nazi Collaboration: America's Dirty Little Ukraine Secret

As the Ukrainian crisis has unfolded over the past few weeks, it's hard for Americans not to see Vladimir Putin as the big villain. But the history of the region is a history of competing villains vying against one another; and one school of villainsthe Nazishave a long history of engagement with the United States, mostly below the radar, but occasionally exposed, as they were by Russ Bellant in his book Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party (South End Press, 1991). Bellant's exposure of émigré Nazi leaders from Germany's World War II allies in the 1988 Bush presidential campaign was the driving force in the announced resignation of nine individuals, two of them from Ukraine, which is why he was the logical choice to illuminate the scattered mentions of Nazi and fascist elements among the Ukrainian nationalists, which somehow never seems to warrant further comment or explanation. Of course most Ukrainians aren't Nazis or fascistsall the more reason to illuminate those who would hide their true natures in the shadows … or even behind the momentary glare of the spotlight.

Quote:It is hard to get a good picture of what is happening in the eastern Ukraine, but looking at various sources it appears to me that large protests have occurred in the cities of Lugansk, Kharkov and Donetsk. From the video footage some rather large crowds, including a lot of women, have assembled in the city centers. In Donetsk and Lugansk the demonstrators have seized the governmental buildings including the local HQs of the Ukrainian SBU (security service). In Donetsk the demonstrators have gathered into something like a popular assembly and have declared the creation of a "People's Republic of Donetsk" and have announced that they plan to hold a referendum on the future of the region on April 11th. The best sign, however, that things are becoming very serious in that the entire top ruling elite of the revolutionary government in Kiev - including Yulia Timoshenko - has relocated to the eastern Ukraine to try to get the situation under control.

My sense is that the crowds in the east seem very angry and very determined and that it might be very hard to get them out, at least without bloodshed (which could trigger a sudden appearance of "Polite Armed Men in Green"). The big weakness of the Russian-speakers in the eastern Ukraine is that their leaders are either already in SBU dungeons or rather tepid and weak. Nobody seems to be really in control.

In the meantime, RT is reporting that Ukrainian nationalists in Kiev have stormed the Supreme Court. Previously, they also attempted to storm the Ukrainian Parliament (but the western press "did not notice" that).

Civil wars are far more likely to occur when there is a vacuum of power than against a strong regime and this is exactly what we see in the Ukraine. For all the desperate attempts of the western elites and corporate media to try to pretend like there is a government in Kiev, the reality is clearly that there is no authority in power anywhere in the Ukraine. Not in the West, not in the Center and not in the East. All we have is complete chaos and many different factions and groups trying to take control.

Again, it is clear to me that unless the USA and Russia strike some kind of deal together the rump-Ukraine is headed straight for a civil war. I am not saying that I like the notion of the USA and Russia deciding the future of the Ukraine instead of the Ukrainian people, but I am saying that the conditions are simply not here for the Ukrainian people to express their will. Besides, the Ukraine being a completely artificial state, there is no way that the hopes and desires of the people in the western Ukraine and the eastern Ukraine can be reconciled. From this flows a simple fact: the more de-centralized a unitary Ukraine would be the more chances of survival it would have. In other words, when the Banderites and the West are insisting on one centralized unitary Ukraine they are actually contributing to the breakup of the country. In these conditions - why should Russia intervene. All it has to do is wait for the final collapse and then pick up whatever piece it will deem worthy of interest.

Stay tuned, the next couple of weeks will be crucial.